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, representing herself on appeal, was convicted of kidnapping, abuse of a child, and attempted child abuse. She entered into a plea agreement, which she later challenged on several grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel and insufficient evidence to support the kidnapping charge (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Jacqueline D. Flores, District Judge, May 22, 2017.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the plea agreement was invalid due to ineffective assistance of counsel, inability to understand the plea agreement and its consequences, insufficient evidence for the kidnapping conviction, violation of double jeopardy rights, and racial bias in the New Mexico judicial system (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant-Appellant's plea agreement was valid.
• Whether the Defendant-Appellant waived her right to challenge her convictions or sentence on direct appeal by entering into an unconditional plea agreement.
• Whether the Defendant-Appellant can attack the plea agreement for the first time on appeal without having filed a motion to withdraw the plea in district court.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed (para 3).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with concurrence from Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and Henry M. Bohnhoff, Judge, the court found that the Defendant-Appellant's unconditional plea agreement waived her right to challenge her convictions or sentence on direct appeal. The court also noted that the Defendant-Appellant could not attack the plea agreement for the first time on appeal without having first filed a motion to withdraw the plea in district court. The Defendant-Appellant's arguments regarding the validity of her plea and resulting convictions were deemed appropriate for collateral proceedings such as habeas corpus, leaving nothing for the court to review on appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed (paras 1-3).