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

• In 1999, the Defendant pled guilty to false imprisonment and battery against a household member. In 2011, he filed a motion to set aside his plea agreement, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for not advising him of the specific immigration consequences of his guilty plea, as required by precedent and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Unable to provide additional facts or legal arguments to challenge the proposed summary affirmance of the district court's order vacating the Defendant's plea. The State agrees with the remedy proposed by the Court of Appeals, which is a remand to the state district court for further proceedings (para 4).
• Defendant-Appellee (Jose Ibarra): Argued that his plea agreement should be set aside due to ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically that his attorney failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, in violation of established legal standards (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's plea agreement should be vacated due to ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea.

Disposition

• The district court’s order vacating the Defendant's plea and remanding to the district court for further proceedings is affirmed (para 5).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, J., and MICHAEL E. VIGIL, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to vacate the Defendant's plea agreement based on ineffective assistance of counsel. This decision was influenced by the precedent set in State v. Paredez, which requires attorneys to advise non-citizen clients of the specific immigration consequences of pleading guilty. The New Mexico Supreme Court's decision in Ramirez, which held that the requirement for attorneys to discuss immigration consequences with their clients applies retroactively to 1990, further supported this outcome. The State's inability to provide additional facts or legal arguments against the proposed summary affirmance contributed to the decision. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings, in line with the State's agreement with the proposed remedy (paras 1-5).