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 entered a guilty plea to one charge of trafficking. Subsequently, the district court entered its judgment and sentence. The Defendant later sought to appeal the conviction, claiming the appeal was timely filed despite procedural delays attributed to clerical errors and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Procedural History

• District Court of Eddy County, March 15, 2013: Entered judgment and sentence on Defendant's guilty plea to trafficking (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the appeal should be accepted as timely filed, citing a clerical error and ineffective assistance of counsel as reasons for the delay in filing the notice of appeal (paras 1, 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's appeal should be accepted as timely filed despite being filed outside the standard appeal period.
• Whether the Defendant can challenge his plea agreement on the basis of receiving ineffective assistance of counsel without first moving to withdraw the plea agreement in district court.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals decided to accept the appeal as timely filed due to exceptional circumstances but affirmed the Defendant's conviction (paras 1, 6).

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring):
  The Court was initially inclined to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to the untimely filing of the notice of appeal. However, upon consideration of the Defendant's memorandum in opposition, which highlighted a clerical error and ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court found exceptional circumstances that warranted accepting the appeal as timely filed (paras 1, 4). Despite this, the Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction, noting that the Defendant had not moved to withdraw his plea agreement in district court, which precluded the Court from reviewing his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. The Court suggested that the Defendant could pursue his claims through a petition for habeas corpus relief (paras 5-6).