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, Elena Chavez-Chavez, entered a no-contest plea to three criminal counts, including a felony charge of aggravated assault. The plea was later challenged due to her lawyer's ineffective assistance, specifically providing erroneous advice regarding the immigration consequences of her plea. The Defendant has spent most of her life in the United States, is a mother to a young child residing in New Mexico, was attending high school in the U.S., and her immediate family also lives in the U.S. (para 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant failed to show that her counsel’s deficient performance caused her prejudice sufficient to withdraw her plea (para 2).
• Defendant-Appellee (Elena Chavez-Chavez): Responded that she has shown prejudice because she would have refused to enter the plea and insisted on a trial had she known the immigration consequences of her no-contest plea (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's counsel's deficient performance regarding advice on the immigration consequences of her plea was prejudicial enough to permit withdrawal of her no-contest plea.

Disposition

• The district court's order allowing the Defendant to withdraw her no-contest plea due to constitutional and procedural defects in the underlying criminal proceedings was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with concurrence from Judges Kristina Bogardus and Zachary A. Ives, the decision was based on the agreement between the parties that the Defendant’s plea counsel provided erroneous advice regarding the immigration consequences of her plea. The district court's conclusion that this deficient performance prejudiced the defense was supported by the record, which included extensive briefing, numerous exhibits, and a sworn affidavit from the Defendant. The record established that the Defendant suffered prejudice because her lawyer did not appropriately forewarn her of the immigration consequences of entering the plea. The appellate court concluded that the record supported the district court’s determination and affirmed the order allowing the Defendant to withdraw her plea, emphasizing that it would not substitute its judgment for that of the district court (paras 2-4).