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

• Tommy Valdez, the Defendant, entered a conditional guilty plea for aggravated assault, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss based on a claimed violation of his right to a speedy trial. The case involves the Defendant's argument that his trial did not occur in a timely manner, which he contends is a violation of his rights.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by not dismissing the case for a speedy trial violation as of the date he entered his plea, suggesting that his plea agreement's reservation of the right to appeal on speedy trial grounds should have alerted the court to this issue.
• Appellee (State): The State's specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the State opposed the Defendant's claims regarding the speedy trial violation.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss based on a claimed violation of his right to a speedy trial.
• Whether the Defendant's conviction violated his right to be free from double jeopardy due to prior administrative discipline for the same incident.

Disposition

• The court denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement and affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error on the basis of the Defendant's claim of a speedy trial violation or the double jeopardy claim.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Roderick T. Kennedy, Michael E. Vigil, and Timothy L. Garcia, provided several reasons for their decision:
  The Court found that the Defendant's only motion in the district court based on a speedy trial violation was made orally less than a year after the indictment, which was too soon to trigger a speedy trial analysis under State v. Garza.
  The Defendant did not make a subsequent motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation by the time he entered his plea, nor did he seek any ruling on a renewed claim of a speedy trial violation. The Court declined to find error based on the district court’s failure to rule on a motion that was never made.
  The Court also addressed a memorandum of understanding attached to the Defendant's plea agreement, noting that it did not impact their decision as it was not an agreement on the factual predicate of a speedy trial claim and was not signed by the district court.
  Regarding the motion to amend the docketing statement to add a double jeopardy claim, the Court denied the motion, stating that disciplinary actions taken by a correctional facility, such as solitary confinement, do not give rise to double jeopardy protections.