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 was convicted of the felony crimes of embezzlement and criminal damage to property pursuant to a plea agreement (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Luna County, Daniel Viramontes, District Judge, May 5, 2015.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued for the allowance to withdraw his plea, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure in pursuing available defenses, inadequate communication, and insufficient investigation to uncover facts that would support these defenses (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The State's arguments are not directly summarized in the decision, but it can be inferred that the State opposed the Defendant's arguments based on the court's decision to affirm the convictions (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant should have been allowed to withdraw his plea based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (para 2).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the convictions for embezzlement and criminal damage to property (para 3).

Reasons

• The decision was authored by Judge Timothy L. Garcia, with Judges Roderick T. Kennedy and J. Miles Hanisee concurring. The court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments to withdraw his plea, citing that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim relates to matters not of record, which does not provide a basis for relief on direct appeal. The court referenced a preference for habeas corpus proceedings over remand when the record on appeal does not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, leading to the affirmation of the convictions (paras 2-3).