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 was initially charged with sixty-five counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) in the second degree. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant pleaded guilty to three charges. Following an oral pronouncement of sentence by the district court, the court reconsidered and increased the sentence due to threats made by the Defendant against the safety of the young children he abused. The Defendant appealed, challenging the increased sentence on the grounds of double jeopardy and ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 1, 5).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Cibola County, Pedro G. Rael, District Judge: The district court entered a judgment and sentence pursuant to a plea agreement, which was later reconsidered and increased due to the Defendant's threats against the victims.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the increased sentence violated the prohibition against double jeopardy and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the district court did not err by increasing the Defendant's sentence and that the Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's increase of the Defendant's sentence after an oral pronouncement violated the prohibition against double jeopardy.
• Whether the Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel (paras 1-2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to increase the Defendant's sentence after the oral pronouncement (para 7).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge, and BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge concurring:
  The Court found that the Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was abandoned due to a lack of response to the Court's proposed analysis of the claim. Regarding the double jeopardy claim, the Court relied on precedent establishing that an oral sentence is not final until reduced to writing and that jeopardy attaches when the court enters a judgment and imposes a sentence on the guilty plea. The Court distinguished the Defendant's case from previous cases where defendants had begun serving their sentences, noting that the Defendant had not begun serving the orally pronounced sentence and had no reasonable expectation of finality in that sentence. The reconsideration of the sentence was prompted by the Defendant's threats made against the victims, which the Court found akin to misrepresentation. Consequently, the Court held that double jeopardy principles did not preclude the district court from reconsidering and imposing a greater sentence (paras 2-6).