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 guilty plea for a second-degree felony involving a sex crime with a minor, claiming his attorney failed to inform him about the certain immigration consequences of his plea, specifically deportation. The Defendant and his wife testified that the attorney promised probation and did not discuss deportation, while the attorney testified to having informed the Defendant about the deportation consequences on multiple occasions. The Defendant communicated with his attorney through his wife acting as an interpreter due to language barriers.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Fernando R. Macias, District Judge

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his guilty plea was based on inadequate advice from his attorney regarding the immigration consequences, specifically that he was not informed about the certainty of deportation following his conviction.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the Defendant was adequately informed about the immigration consequences of his plea, including the certainty of deportation, by his attorney.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was inadequately advised by his attorney about the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, specifically the certainty of deportation, which would justify withdrawing the guilty plea.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge (James J. Wechsler, Judge, and Michael D. Bustamante, Judge, concurring):
  The court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's discretionary ruling that the Defendant was not credibly proven to have been inadequately advised by his attorney regarding the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. The district court had the prerogative to resolve the contradictory testimonies and found the attorney's testimony credible. The attorney testified to having informed the Defendant and his wife about the deportation consequences on multiple occasions, which was supported by the Defendant's acknowledgment of understanding the possibility of deportation as per the plea documents. The court also noted that the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea was based on self-serving statements without extrinsic evidence to support a reasonable probability that he would have opted for trial had he been properly informed. The court concluded that the Defendant's plea was voluntary and the attorney's representation was sufficient, thus not constituting ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 1-19).