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 Petitioner entered a plea agreement that specified a fifteen-year custody term followed by a two-year parole term. However, after accepting the plea, the district court sentenced the Petitioner to an indeterminate parole term of five-to-twenty years and later amended this to a term of not less than five years up to the Petitioner's natural life, as mandated by statute (para 4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that the plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the district court deviated from the agreed-upon two-year parole term in the plea agreement, imposing instead a parole term of five years to natural life, contrary to the plea's terms (para 4).
• Respondent: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by summarily dismissing the Petitioner's habeas petition under Rule 5-802(I)(1) NMRA, given that the Petitioner had raised the same claim in a prior petition (para 5).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the district court’s summary dismissal of the Petitioner’s habeas petition and remanded with instructions to allow the Petitioner to withdraw his plea (para 8).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, per curiam, found that the summary dismissal of the Petitioner's habeas petition was improper under Rule 5-802(I)(1) because the Petitioner had raised the same claim in a prior petition filed in 2017. The Court noted that the district court had confused the challenge of the illegal enhancement of the parole term with a challenge against the legality of the parole term itself in the prior petition. The Court also referenced its decision in State v. Romero, which concluded that a defendant was prejudiced under similar circumstances where a plea agreement's parole term was later altered to reflect a mandatory harsher sentence. The Court held that, consistent with Romero, the Petitioner should be given an opportunity to withdraw his plea (paras 5-7).