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

• In September 2016, the State indicted the Defendant for ten alleged offenses, including four counts of third-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), three counts of aggravated indecent exposure, and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. In February 2019, the Defendant entered into a global plea agreement, pleading no contest to six of the ten counts: the four counts of CSCM, one count of aggravated indecent exposure, and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The plea dismissed the remaining counts and charges in four other pending cases, with the State agreeing not to pursue two additional charges (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the no contest plea was not voluntarily and knowingly entered into due to the district court's failure to ensure the Defendant understood the nature of the charges and the possible sentence range (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Responded that the Defendant failed to preserve these arguments for appellate review (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest plea by failing to ensure the plea was voluntarily and knowingly entered into (para 1).
• Whether the Defendant preserved the argument that the plea was not voluntarily and knowingly entered into for appellate review (para 7).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the Defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest plea (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Bogardus, with Judges Duffy concurring and Judge Yohalem dissenting, held that the Defendant preserved his argument regarding the district court's failure to determine whether he understood the nature of the CSCM charges but failed to preserve other arguments related to the nature of the remaining charges and the possible sentence range. The Court found that the Defendant did not demonstrate that any failure to comply with plea procedure requirements prejudiced his ability to knowingly and voluntarily enter the plea. The Court concluded that the district court substantially complied with the requirements to ensure the Defendant understood the nature of the CSCM charges based on the totality of the circumstances, including the indictment details and the plea agreement discussions. The Court also noted that the Defendant did not demonstrate reversible error regarding potential double jeopardy concerns or ineffective assistance of counsel, suggesting habeas proceedings as the appropriate avenue for further development of these arguments (paras 7-29).
  Judge Yohalem dissented, arguing that the district court did not substantially comply with Rule 5-303(F)(1) requirements, as the record did not affirmatively show that the Defendant understood the nature of the CSCM charges in relation to the facts, particularly regarding the identical charges for each victim potentially violating double jeopardy principles (paras 34-43).