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 appealed the district court's denial of his motion to set aside his guilty plea. He argued that his plea was not knowingly and intelligently made due to counsel's errors, including being told the case would be prosecuted as breaking and entering, being coerced into the plea because counsel made no preparations for trial, and being misled to believe he would receive a sentence of one year followed by two years on parole.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Lea County, Gary L. Clingman, District Judge, February 23, 2012: The district court denied the Defendant's motion to set aside his guilty plea.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently made due to counsel's errors, including misinformation about the charges, lack of trial preparation, and incorrect sentencing expectations.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion to set aside his guilty plea based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and the plea not being knowingly and intelligently made.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to set aside his guilty plea.

Reasons

• Per MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The Court applied an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the district court's decision. It found that the Defendant did not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel as there was no record to support his claims of counsel's failure to prepare a defense, discover alibi witnesses, or properly advise him. The Court noted the absence of information about evidence or testimony presented at the hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea, leading to an insufficient record for review. The Court suggested that the Defendant is free to pursue habeas corpus proceedings for further examination of his claims.