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, a Mexican National legally residing in the U.S. since childhood, pleaded guilty in 1998 to child abuse and abuse of aerosol spray, receiving a suspended sentence and unsupervised probation. Unaware that her plea could lead to deportation, she sought to withdraw her guilty plea thirteen years later under Rule 1-060 NMRA, claiming ineffective counsel for not being advised of the plea's immigration consequences.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that her guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily given due to ineffective assistance of counsel, who failed to inform her of the specific immigration consequences of her plea.
• Appellee: The State contended that the district court's denial of the Defendant's petition to withdraw her guilty plea was appropriate, implying that the advice given was within the bounds of reasonableness.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's Rule 1-060 NMRA petition for relief without an evidentiary hearing.
• Whether the Defendant's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily given in light of her counsel's failure to advise her of the immigration consequences.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of the Defendant's petition and remanded for further proceedings.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (Michael D. Bustamante, J., Cynthia A. Fry, J., concurring): The Court found that the district court abused its discretion by denying the Defendant's motion to withdraw her guilty plea without considering the undisputed facts that the plea might not have been knowingly and voluntarily given due to ineffective counsel. The Court reviewed the Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo, noting that Rule 1-060(B)(4) allows for relief from a final judgment if the judgment is void, as in cases where a plea was entered without adequate advice on immigration consequences. The Court referenced State v. Paredez, which mandates that non-citizen defendants be advised of specific immigration consequences of guilty pleas. The Defendant's affidavit and the district court's findings suggested that she was not adequately informed before entering her plea. The Court also addressed the retroactivity of Paredez, concluding it applies to the Defendant's case, and remanded for a determination on whether the Defendant would have entered the plea if properly advised.