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, Vicente T. Sandoval, appealed from the district court's order denying his motion to withdraw his 2004 no contest plea.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest plea was untimely filed.
• Appellant (Vicente T. Sandoval): Filed a response agreeing with the proposed disposition that his motion was untimely and acknowledged the procedural path forward involving a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest plea was timely filed.
• Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to construe a motion as a petition for habeas corpus.

Disposition

• The district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to withdraw his no contest plea was affirmed.

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring): The Court affirmed the district court's decision on the basis that the Defendant's motion was untimely filed, pursuant to Rule 5-801(B) NMRA, which requires that a motion to reduce a sentence must be filed within ninety days after the sentence is imposed. The Court also noted that it lacks jurisdiction to construe a motion as a petition for habeas corpus, a flexibility that the New Mexico Supreme Court possesses. The Defendant was advised that his remedy would be to file a new petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court, as it has jurisdiction over such petitions. The New Mexico Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals, has jurisdiction to review an appeal from the district court’s ruling on a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Defendant's agreement with the proposed disposition was also acknowledged.