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 May 2017, the Defendant was charged with felonies and a misdemeanor after driving a stolen vehicle. In October 2017, after being released on bond, he was confronted by police while driving another stolen vehicle, leading to additional charges after he pepper-sprayed pursuing officers. The Defendant entered a no contest plea to charges in both cases pursuant to a plea agreement, resulting in a sentence with most of it suspended and his release to supervised probation. Subsequently, the Defendant violated probation terms, leading to a motion by the State to revoke his probation, which the district court granted, imposing additional incarceration (paras 2, 8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in revoking his probation because his underlying plea was not valid, the court lacked jurisdiction, and his convictions violated double jeopardy principles (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Responded that the Defendant clearly entered a no contest plea, and any challenge to the plea's validity constitutes invited error. Also, argued that the Defendant waived his right to appeal his conviction by signing the plea agreement (paras 3-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court committed reversible error in revoking the Defendant's probation.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for assault and battery upon a peace officer violate double jeopardy principles.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation and rejected the Defendant's double jeopardy claim (para 11).

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge, with Jacqueline R. Medina, Judge, and Gerald E. Baca, Judge, concurring:
  The Court found that the Defendant's no contest plea was valid and that by signing the plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal his conviction. The Court also noted that the Defendant failed to demonstrate that his plea was not knowing or voluntary (paras 3-5).
  Regarding the jurisdictional challenge, the Court determined that the Defendant was represented by counsel during plea negotiations and at the hearing, thus the district court had jurisdiction to impose the sentence and later revoke probation (para 8).
  On the double jeopardy claim, the Court concluded that the Defendant failed to preserve the issue below, provide a sufficient record, and complete the necessary analysis for appellate review. Therefore, the Court did not find his convictions for assault and battery upon a peace officer to violate double jeopardy principles (para 10).