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 was convicted of one count of intentional child abuse (no death or great bodily harm) following a guilty plea. The Defendant later argued that this plea was entered under coercion, partly due to ineffective assistance from her trial counsel, who allegedly failed to procure documentation for an alibi defense and did not file a motion to withdraw her plea prior to appeal (para 1-2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the guilty plea was coerced, partly due to ineffective assistance from trial counsel. The Defendant claimed that counsel failed to procure alibi documentation and did not file a motion to withdraw the plea before appealing. Cited State v. Franklin and State v. Boyer to support arguments (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The summary does not provide specific arguments from the Plaintiff-Appellee. However, it is implied that the Plaintiff-Appellee opposed the Defendant-Appellant's claims (para 1-3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was coerced into entering a guilty plea.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to procure alibi documentation and failure to file a motion to withdraw the plea prior to appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for one count of intentional child abuse (no death or great bodily harm) (para 4).

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments regarding coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel. It emphasized that the necessary facts to support the Defendant's claims were not developed in the record. However, it noted that the Defendant is not precluded from pursuing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in habeas proceedings, citing State v. Herrera as expressing a preference for habeas corpus proceedings over remand when the record on appeal does not support the factual basis for an issue on appeal (para 2-3).