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 German national and United States permanent resident, pleaded "no contest" to charges of aggravated battery against a household member and criminal damage to property of a household member. He later sought to withdraw his plea, arguing that he was not properly advised of the immigration consequences of his plea, contrary to the requirements established in State v. Paredez. The district court denied his motion to withdraw the plea, leading to this appeal (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from District Court of San Miguel County, Abigail Aragon, District Judge, November 26, 2013: The district court denied the Defendant's motion to withdraw his "no contest" plea to charges of aggravated battery against a household member and criminal damage to property of a household member.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his attorney failed to advise him of the specific immigration consequences of his plea agreement, as required by State v. Paredez, making the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw the plea erroneous (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to withdraw his "no contest" plea based on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion, indicating that the district court erred in determining there was no ineffective assistance by the attorney due to the Defendant's failure to disclose his immigration status (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Michael D. Bustamante, with Judges Roderick T. Kennedy and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, found that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. The Court held that the Defendant's plea was not entered into voluntarily and knowingly because his counsel failed to advise him of the specific immigration consequences of his plea, as required by State v. Paredez. The Court rejected the premise that the attorney's failure to advise was excusable based on the Defendant's failure to disclose his immigration status or the assumption that the Defendant was a U.S. citizen. The Court emphasized the attorney's obligation to determine a client's immigration status and advise on the specific immigration consequences of a guilty plea. The Court concluded that the Defendant's counsel's performance fell below the standard of a reasonably competent attorney and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the Defendant was prejudiced by this failure (paras 9-20).