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 for DWI (6th offense) after pleading guilty. He sought to appeal the denial of a motion which preceded his guilty plea, without having reserved the right to appeal this specific determination by the district court (para 1-2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the principles established in State v. Chavarria should not apply as they presented a preservation problem, suggested that the intent to enter a conditional plea should alter the outcome, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to enter a conditional plea (paras 3-5).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's guilty plea, without reserving the right to appeal, waives his right to appeal the denial of a pre-plea motion.
• Whether the Defendant's intent to enter a conditional plea, without the State's consent and the district court's approval, can be considered for appeal.
• Whether the Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to not entering a conditional plea is sufficient to merit a review of the case.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Timothy L. Garcia with concurrence from Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and J. Miles Hanisee, held that the Defendant's guilty plea without reserving the right to appeal constituted a waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s determination. The Court found that the principles from State v. Chavarria applied, dismissing the appeal following the entry of an unconditional plea. The Court also noted that conditional pleas require the State's consent and the district court's approval, which was not obtained in this case. Furthermore, the Court rejected the Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to enter a conditional plea, as the Defendant did not satisfy the requirements to establish such a claim. The decision to dismiss was based on the Defendant's failure to reserve the right to appeal and the lack of evidence supporting the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 2-5).