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 sought to vacate the amended judgment and re-enter it to enable the public defender to perfect a timely appeal. This action stemmed from the Defendant's earlier motion to withdraw an Alford plea, which was denied, prompting the Defendant to file a notice of appeal regarding that decision.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his pending motion to withdraw the Alford plea should allow the district court to retain jurisdiction to rule on his motions, including the motion to vacate and re-enter the judgment to facilitate a timely appeal by the public defender.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court retains jurisdiction to rule on the Defendant's motion to vacate and re-enter the judgment after a notice of appeal has been filed concerning the order denying his motion to withdraw an Alford plea.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the denial of the Defendant's motion to vacate and re-enter the judgment due to lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Timothy L. Garcia, Michael E. Vigil, and Linda M. Vanzi, unanimously concurred in the decision. The court found that once the Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the order denying his motion to withdraw the Alford plea, the district court lost jurisdiction over any other matters directed to the judgment on the Alford plea until the appeal was resolved. The Defendant's arguments to retain jurisdiction were deemed unpersuasive, leading to the affirmation of the district court's decision for lack of jurisdiction.