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 entered a no contest plea to two counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor and one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor. After sentencing to time served and three years of supervised probation, the Defendant, with new counsel, moved to withdraw his plea agreement, claiming it was not entered into knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied this motion (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Alisa Hadfield, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the plea was not entered into knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure in discussing the case or evidence, not conducting interviews with potentially exculpatory witnesses, and feeling pressured into accepting the plea agreement (paras 1, 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea agreement on the grounds that his plea was not entered into knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea agreement (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (Linda M. Vanzi, J., Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring):
  The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, citing established standards for reviewing such motions and the requirement for a plea to be knowingly and voluntarily given (paras 2, 5).
  The Court reviewed the transcript of the plea hearing and determined that the district court had adequately ensured the Defendant understood the plea agreement and its consequences, including the requirement to register as a sex offender, and that the Defendant had entered the plea voluntarily (paras 5-7).
  Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court concluded that the Defendant did not establish a prima facie case. The record contradicted the Defendant's claims about counsel's failure to advise on the plea agreement, and strategic decisions made by counsel, such as not interviewing the complaining witness due to potential impacts on the plea offer, were deemed rational (paras 8-11).
  The Court held that the Defendant's arguments, including those related to feeling pressured to accept the plea to avoid further incarceration, did not demonstrate that the plea was involuntary or that counsel's performance was deficient (paras 7, 11).