AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant appealed from a district court order that denied his motion to modify his sentence after his probation was revoked and he was re-sentenced.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRANT COUNTY, J. C. Robinson, District Judge: The district court denied the Defendant's motion to modify his sentence.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued for the modification of his sentence and, in his memorandum in opposition to the calendar notice, presumed ineffective assistance of counsel due to the late filing of his motion to modify the sentence.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant's motion to modify his sentence was untimely and, therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider the Defendant's motion to modify his sentence when filed outside the prescribed time limit.
• Whether ineffective assistance of counsel should be presumed due to the late filing of the Defendant's motion to modify his sentence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision denying the Defendant's motion to modify his sentence.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Michael D. Bustamante, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring):
  The Court noted that the Defendant's motion to modify his sentence was filed outside the 90-day time limit prescribed by Rule 5-801(B) NMRA, following his re-sentencing on June 16, 2011. The late filing rendered the district court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion, as established in State v. Lucero and similar precedents. The Court also addressed the Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, suggesting that such claims are more appropriately handled under Rule 5-802 NMRA through habeas corpus proceedings. The Court distinguished the timeliness of a notice of appeal as a precondition to exercising jurisdiction from the jurisdictional nature of the time limit for filing a motion to modify a sentence, concluding that the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the Defendant under Rule 5-801(B).