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 case involves the Defendant's appeal following the revocation of his probation. The Defendant argued for the withdrawal of his plea, contending that the plea was unknowing and/or involuntary due to the trial court's failure to advise him about the sentence range and ensure he was represented by counsel during the proceedings.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the plea was unknowing and/or involuntary because the trial court did not properly advise him of the sentence range and failed to ensure he was represented by counsel. The Defendant believed he should have been informed of all possible penalties and was entitled to counsel, especially at sentencing, despite waiving his right to counsel when entering the plea.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The State presumably argued against the Defendant's claims, supporting the trial court's decisions regarding advisement on sentencing and representation by counsel. Specific arguments from the Plaintiff-Appellee are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court's advisement about the sentence range to the Defendant was sufficient to render the plea knowing and voluntary.
• Whether the Defendant was entitled to be represented by counsel, and if so, whether he validly waived this right.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, maintaining the revocation of the Defendant's probation.

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with concurrence from Michael D. Bustamante and Timothy L. Garcia, the court found:
  The trial court's advisement met the requirements by informing the Defendant of the maximum possible penalty, which correlated with the magistrate court's authority. The Defendant was not entitled to a more detailed description of all potential sentencing outcomes (paras 3-4).
  Regarding representation by counsel, the court determined that the Defendant was not clearly entitled to counsel given the simplicity of the case and the lack of disputed facts or complex issues. Furthermore, the Defendant had waived his right to counsel upon entering his plea. Conflicting evidence about the Defendant's request for counsel at sentencing was resolved in favor of the State, and the court concluded the Defendant did not adequately alert the trial court of his desire for representation (paras 5-6).