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 was convicted of aggravated battery against a household member and aggravated stalking. These convictions followed the Defendant entering into an unconditional plea agreement. The case involves a history of domestic violence, with the mother of the Defendant's children being the victim of the crimes for which he was convicted.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Benjamin Chavez, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the waiver of appeal in a plea agreement does not divest the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction, suggesting that the challenge to the plea agreement's condition was made promptly at sentencing. The Defendant also sought to amend the docketing statement to include an issue regarding whether the condition of probation resulted in an illegal sentence.
• Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the waiver of appeal in a plea agreement divests the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction.
• Whether the Defendant can challenge the plea agreement for the first time on appeal.
• Whether the condition of probation resulted in an illegal sentence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the Defendant's appeal.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Michael E. Vigil, Linda M. Vanzi, and Stephen G. French, unanimously decided to dismiss the appeal. The Court reasoned that the Defendant's unconditional plea agreement waived his right to challenge his convictions or sentence on direct appeal, citing State v. Chavarria and State v. Andazola. The Court also noted that the Defendant did not reserve any issues for appeal in his plea agreement, effectively waiving his right to appeal. The attempt to distinguish Chavarria based on the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Rudy B. was not persuasive to the Court, as Rudy B. addressed the difference between waiver of the right to an appeal and jurisdiction to hear an appeal, not the conditions of the waiver itself. Furthermore, the Court found that the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to include an issue regarding the legality of the probation condition was not viable for direct appeal and should instead be pursued in the district court. Lastly, the Court addressed the Defendant's argument regarding the lack of notice about the no-contact order as a condition of probation, stating that such a condition was foreseeable and standard for cases involving domestic violence, thereby dismissing the claim of insufficient notice.