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 on two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He later argued that the convictions were invalid because the alleged victim was over the age of eighteen at the time the offenses occurred.

Procedural History

• State v. Trujillo, No. 24,919, slip. op. (N.M. Ct. App. (Jan. 6, 2005)): The court addressed issues raised by the Defendant regarding the validity of his plea agreement, specifically the requirement that the victim be under eighteen, and concluded that the Defendant could not challenge the facts underlying his plea.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his convictions should be reversed because the victim was over eighteen when the offenses occurred, attempting to distinguish this argument from those presented in his prior appeal.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order denying the Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence should be reversed based on the argument that the victim was over the age of eighteen when the offenses occurred.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Reasons

• Per WECHSLER, J. (CYNTHIA A. FRY, J., MICHAEL E. VIGIL, J., concurring): The Court applied the doctrine of law of the case, affirming its prior decision in State v. Trujillo, No. 24,919, which addressed similar issues raised by the Defendant regarding the age of the victim and the validity of his plea. The Court concluded that the Defendant could not challenge the facts supporting his convictions for contributing to the delinquency of a minor given his guilty plea, and thus, under the doctrine of law of the case, the Court was bound by its prior decision and affirmed the district court's order.