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 CSP II, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and tampering with evidence. He later sought to withdraw his plea, expressing regret and a desire for a jury trial, based on a belief that he was facing the death penalty due to his trial attorney's advisement. The district court found the Defendant's assertions about the death penalty advisement to be untrue.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court improperly participated in plea negotiations and contended that the signature on the plea agreement was not his own. Additionally, the Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, citing regret and a preference for a jury trial. He also claimed his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, partly because he believed he was facing the death penalty based on incorrect legal advice.
• Appellee: Opposed the motion to amend the docketing statement and the motion to withdraw the plea, arguing that the plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court improperly participated in plea negotiations.
• Whether the signature on the plea agreement was the Defendant's.
• Whether the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea was wrongfully denied.
• Whether the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The convictions for CSP II, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and tampering with evidence were upheld.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judge M. Monica Zamora, with Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi and Judge Michael E. Vigil concurring, provided several reasons for their decision:
  The Court found no support in the record for the Defendant's claims that the district court improperly took part in plea negotiations or that the signature on the plea agreement was not his own, thus denying the motion to amend (para 2).
  The Court reviewed the denial of the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea for abuse of discretion and found that regret and a preference for a jury trial did not provide a basis for relief from the plea (paras 3-4).
  The Court rejected the Defendant's claim about facing the death penalty based on his trial attorney's advisement, as the district court did not find these assertions credible (para 5).
  The record was deemed sufficient to establish that the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The Court suggested that any additional material beyond the record that the Defendant wished to be considered should be pursued through habeas corpus proceedings (para 6).
  The Court declined to reconsider the standard by which motions to withdraw pleas are evaluated, citing adherence to Supreme Court precedent (para 7).