Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,423 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
State v. Grogan - cited by 125 documents
State v. Hunter - cited by 79 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. BARRS
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOE BARRS,
Defendant-Appellant.
NO. 29,543
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
July 19, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY,
Robert Schwartz, District Judge
COUNSEL
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender, Allison H. Jaramillo, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge. WE CONCUR: CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
AUTHOR:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WECHSLER, Judge.
Defendant appeals the sentence imposed on him pursuant to his plea agreement. We proposed to dismiss the appeal reasoning that, because Defendant entered into a plea agreement, he is not an aggrieved party and is not entitled to appeal. We have received a response from Defendant in which he does not dispute our proposal that he is not an aggrieved party, but does claim that his counsel was ineffective. Defendant claims that his counsel informed him that he would receive only probation if he signed the plea agreement. However, there is nothing in the record to support Defendant’s claim. See State v. Hunter, 2001-NMCA-078, ¶ 18, 131 N.M. 76, 33 P.3d 296 (“Matters not of record present no issue for review.”). We note that, where the record does not include documentation essential to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, habeas corpus proceedings are the preferred method for addressing such claims. State v. Grogan, 2007-NMSC-039, ¶ 9, 142 N.M. 107, 163 P.3d 494.
For the reasons discussed in our calendar notice, we dismiss the appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
WE CONCUR:
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge