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, Isaac Ramirez, entered into a plea agreement and was convicted of numerous serious offenses. He believed he would receive a sentence of eleven to fifteen years but was ultimately sentenced to twenty-six years. The Defendant contended that his counsel failed to accurately advise him about the sentence he would receive and also failed to file a motion to withdraw his plea (MIO 3-8, RP 273, 338-345).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to accurately advise him about the potential sentence and by not filing a motion to withdraw his plea (MIO 3-8).
• Appellee: The State, through its representation, opposed the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement and memorandum in opposition, effectively arguing against the Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (MIO 3-8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to accurately advise the Defendant about his sentence and by not filing a motion to withdraw the plea.
• Whether the Defendant's sentence exceeded the amount of "real time" he believed he would receive and if such a belief warrants reversal of the sentence.

Disposition

• The motion to amend was denied due to the Defendant's failure to make a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel.
• The appeal challenging the sentence on the grounds that it exceeded the amount of "real time" the Defendant believed he would receive was also denied, affirming the sentence.

Reasons

• GARCIA, Judge (SUTIN, J., and FRY, J., concurring): The court found the Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to be not viable because the record did not support the Defendant's assertions. Specifically, there was no agreement on the sentence to be imposed, and the sentence was consistent with the written plea agreement, leaving no apparent basis for filing a motion to withdraw the plea. The court suggested that habeas proceedings would be the appropriate avenue for further pursuing the matter. Regarding the sentence's legality, the court observed that the sentence was within the permissible range and that the district court did not exceed its jurisdiction in imposing it. Therefore, the court affirmed the sentence for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed summary disposition (MIO 2-8, RP 270-72, 282-84).