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 voluntarily entered a guilty plea to multiple charges, including aggravated burglary with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary, unauthorized use of another's card, residential burglary, and auto burglary. As part of the plea and disposition agreement, the Defendant waived his right to appeal, provided the court's sentence was imposed according to the terms of this agreement. The district court found the Defendant not amenable to treatment as a child and subjected him to an adult sentence of thirty-one years and six months, with seventeen years and six months suspended, resulting in an actual imprisonment term of fourteen years (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant's sentence of thirty-one and one-half years was consistent with the terms of his plea agreement and that the Defendant has failed to raise any claims beyond the waiver's scope, thereby precluding any appellate review of the Defendant’s appeal (para 8).
• Appellant (Defendant-Christopher T. Rodriguez): Challenged the district court’s conclusion that he is not amenable to treatment, although the specific arguments made by the Defendant in his appeal are not detailed in the decision (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's waiver of his right to appeal as part of his plea and disposition agreement precludes appellate review of his challenge to the district court's conclusion that he is not amenable to treatment (paras 1, 6-9).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed based on the Defendant's stipulated waiver of his right to appeal as part of the plea and disposition agreement (para 10).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges M. Monica Zamora, Julie J. Vargas, and Jacqueline R. Medina, unanimously concluded that the Defendant's appeal could not be considered due to the stipulated waiver of defenses and appeal included in his plea agreement. The Court found that the sentence imposed by the district court was consistent with the terms of the plea agreement, thereby binding the Defendant to his waiver of the right to appeal. The Court also noted that the Defendant's failure to address the stipulated waiver in his briefing further supported the dismissal of his appeal. However, the Court mentioned that the Defendant could raise his appellate issue through habeas corpus proceedings (paras 7-9).