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 indicted on multiple charges, including criminal sexual penetration of a child under 13, sexual exploitation of children (manufacture, distribution, possession), voyeurism of a person under 18, and failure to register as a sex offender. In October 2018, the Defendant entered a no contest plea to the sexual exploitation and voyeurism charges (Counts 2 through 5) as part of a plea agreement that dismissed the failure to register charge (Count 6). In December 2018, the Defendant pled guilty to a lesser included offense of the charge in Count 1. Later, the Defendant sought to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not made knowingly or voluntarily, and that he was coerced into pleading guilty to Count 1. This led to a motion to withdraw the plea, initially focusing on Count 1, but later amended to include Counts 2 through 5 (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his plea, contending the plea was not made knowingly or voluntarily. The Defendant also claimed that his counsel did not properly advise him of the consequences of his plea, leading to a misunderstanding of his right to trial and the plea's implications (paras 1, 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the Defendant failed to preserve several issues for review by not raising them below and argued that the Defendant's plea was made knowingly and voluntarily. The State supported the district court's decision to deny the motion to withdraw the plea (paras 6-7, 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea on the grounds that it was not made knowingly or voluntarily.
• Whether the Defendant's sentence was in accordance with his understanding of the plea agreements.

Disposition

• The district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to withdraw plea was affirmed.
• The Defendant's request to remand for resentencing was denied (para 20).

Reasons

• DUFFY, Judge (with JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge, and MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, concurring): The court found that the Defendant did not preserve several claims for review and limited its evaluation to the claim regarding defense counsel's performance. The court applied the two-part Strickland test to assess claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of plea agreements. It concluded that the Defendant failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient or that any alleged deficiency prejudiced his defense. The court also found that the sentence imposed was in accordance with the unambiguous terms of the plea agreements, thus affirming the district court's sentencing decision (paras 6-19).