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, a citizen of Mexico, was arrested and charged with intentional possession of cocaine and use or possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia. In 2002, he entered a guilty plea to one count of cocaine possession, a fourth-degree felony. Years after completing his probation and having his sentence deferred, the Defendant was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement following a traffic stop. He then sought to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing he was not informed of the immigration consequences of his plea and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 2, 4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Cibola County, Camille M. Olguin, District Judge: Denied Defendant's motion for relief from judgment, wherein Defendant sought to set aside the guilty plea based on grounds of inadequate translation services, ineffective assistance of counsel, and a violation of Rule 5-303(F)(5) NMRA regarding immigration consequences of a guilty plea (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) he did not receive adequate translation services during his plea hearing, (2) the district court erred in ruling that Defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) the district court erred in ruling that Defendant failed to establish a Rule 5-303(F)(5) violation (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Conceded that the district court failed to comply with Rule 5-303(F)(5) but argued that the version of the rule in place at the time of the Defendant's plea did not require the court to inform defendants of immigration consequences. Also argued that a judgment is void only if the court lacked jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process (para 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for relief from judgment based on claims of inadequate translation services, ineffective assistance of counsel, and a violation of Rule 5-303(F)(5) regarding the notification of immigration consequences of a guilty plea.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the district court and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion, specifically instructing the district court to allow the Defendant to withdraw his plea (para 14).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE (RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring): The Court found that the district court failed to comply with Rule 5-303(F)(5) as it did not inform the Defendant that his plea may have an effect on his immigration status nor did it inquire whether defense counsel had advised him of the immigration consequences of a plea. This failure rendered the Defendant's plea unknowing and involuntary, thus violating his due process rights. The Court also noted that the State conceded the district court's failure to comply with Rule 5-303(F)(5), but the Court rejected the State's argument that the version of the rule in effect at the time of the plea did not require notification of immigration consequences. The Court concluded that the district court's failure to comply with the rule necessitated reversal and remand for the Defendant to withdraw his plea (paras 9-13).