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 sought to withdraw his plea and disposition agreements from April 10, 2007, and July 17, 2013, arguing that the parole period imposed in the 2007 judgment violated the terms of the 2007 plea agreement, which stipulated a shorter parole period. The Defendant contended that this discrepancy rendered the sentence illegal and warranted withdrawal from the plea agreement (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the 5 to 20-year parole period imposed in the 2007 judgment and sentence violated the 2007 plea agreement's provision for a 2-year parole period, making the sentence illegal and justifying withdrawal from the 2007 plea (paras 1-2).
• Appellee: The State's position, while not explicitly detailed in the decision, opposed the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea, as inferred from the court's decision to affirm the district court's denial of the motion (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the imposition of a 5 to 20-year parole period, contrary to the 2007 plea agreement's provision for a 2-year parole period, rendered the sentence illegal and justified the Defendant's withdrawal from the plea agreement (para 2).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea (para 4).

Reasons

• The court, comprising Judges Linda M. Vanzi, Michael E. Vigil, and M. Monica Zamora, unanimously affirmed the district court's decision. The court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments, particularly noting that the challenge to the pleas was untimely. The court suggested that the Defendant could seek habeas relief to challenge his pleas but must do so in a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in district court that complies with the content requirements of Rule 5-802 NMRA. The decision to affirm was based on the untimeliness of the Defendant's challenge and the procedural avenues available for the type of relief sought by the Defendant (paras 1-4).