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 appealed the district court's decision denying his motion to withdraw his no contest plea. The plea had been entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The Defendant later sought to withdraw the plea, claiming he had difficulty locating a witness who could support his version of events. Once the witness was located, he filed his motion to withdraw, arguing it was done with due diligence.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Valencia County, William A. Sanchez, District Judge: Amended order denying Defendant's motion to withdraw no contest plea.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the Defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest plea was untimely as it was filed outside the requisite thirty-day time period for challenging the judgment.
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the motion to withdraw was filed with due diligence upon locating a supportive witness, thus should be considered timely despite being outside the standard time frame.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest plea on the grounds of timeliness.
• Whether the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea should be considered timely based on the argument of due diligence in locating a supportive witness.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea.

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, and JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge concurring): The Court concluded that the Defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest plea was untimely as it was filed outside the thirty-day period required for challenging the judgment. The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's argument that his motion was timely based on due diligence in locating a witness. The Court held that, in addition to being made with due diligence, any motion to withdraw a plea must be filed within the requisite time period to be considered timely. Consequently, the Court did not address the merits of the Defendant's claim regarding ineffective trial counsel, indicating that such a challenge should be pursued through a habeas corpus matter.