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 in magistrate court for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and battery upon a household member. He appealed his guilty plea convictions in a self-represented capacity from the district court (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Luna County, Jennifer E. DeLaney, District Judge, May 14, 2015: The district court dismissed the Defendant's appeal from his magistrate court guilty plea convictions (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his conviction should be reversed on jurisdictional grounds and made numerous factual assertions challenging the sufficiency of the evidence (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's unconditional guilty plea waived his right to appeal his conviction on grounds other than jurisdictional issues.
• Whether there was a jurisdictional defect in the Defendant's conviction that would allow for an appeal despite the guilty plea (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Defendant's appeal, holding that the Defendant's unconditional guilty plea waived his right to appeal his conviction on grounds other than jurisdictional issues (para 3).

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, J. (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, J., CYNTHIA A. FRY, J., concurring): The Court noted that a voluntary guilty plea typically waives the defendant's right to appeal his conviction except on jurisdictional grounds. The Defendant failed to demonstrate that his guilty plea was conditional or that there was a jurisdictional defect warranting a reversal of his conviction. Despite the Defendant's assertions challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and claiming jurisdictional errors, he did not provide any supporting law or facts. Consequently, the Court affirmed the conviction based on the Defendant's failure to clearly point out any errors in fact or law regarding the notice of proposed disposition (paras 1-3).