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 nonlegal resident living in the United States since childhood, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor offenses in two magistrate court cases in January and December 2017. He was placed on 364 days of supervised probation for each case, which he completed in December 2018. In February 2020, the Defendant sought to withdraw his guilty pleas, arguing he had not been advised of the immigration consequences of his pleas (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Magistrate Court, March 3, 2020, and March 5, 2020: Denied Defendant's motions to withdraw guilty pleas as untimely and noted that Defendant was advised of possible immigration consequences (para 3).
• District Court of Lincoln County: Affirmed the magistrate court's denial of Defendant's motions to withdraw his guilty pleas, finding that the magistrate court had fulfilled its duty in warning Defendant about the possible immigration consequences for both pleas (para 9).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that he was not properly advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty pleas and that his waiver of counsel in one of the cases was invalid. He also contended that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over his appeals under Rule 6-703 or Rule 5-803 (paras 4-5, 7).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Moved to dismiss both appeals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the appeals were untimely, Defendant completed serving each of his sentences, and the orders were not final, intermediate, or nondispositive (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider Defendant's appeal under Rule 6-703 or Rule 5-803 (para 11).
• Whether Defendant was properly advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty pleas and waived counsel in one of his cases (para 11).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 5-803 and that the magistrate court properly warned Defendant about the immigration consequences of his guilty pleas. It also found that Defendant waived his right to counsel in one of his cases (paras 21, 26, 34).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the magistrate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Defendant's motions to withdraw his guilty pleas due to their untimeliness and the completion of his sentences. However, it held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 5-803, treating Defendant's motions as petitions under this rule due to the procedural history and the substance of the motions. The Court also determined that the magistrate court had properly warned Defendant about the possible immigration consequences of his guilty pleas, fulfilling its duty under Paredez. Additionally, the Court found that Defendant had waived his right to counsel in one of his cases, affirming the district court's findings (paras 12-34).