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 entered an unconditional plea of no contest to charges of sexual exploitation of children (possession) and child solicitation by electronic communication device. Following the judgment and sentence, the Defendant appealed the convictions (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the unconditional plea was not knowing and voluntary due to an insufficiently clear and explicit colloquy, particularly regarding the impact on his constitutional right to bear arms. Contended that the plea is invalid as a matter of law and sought reversal of his convictions (para 3).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's unconditional plea was knowing and voluntary, specifically in relation to the adequacy of the colloquy and its impact on his constitutional right to bear arms.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed (para 7).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, Judge Megan P. Duffy, and Judge Zachary A. Ives, unanimously concluded that the appeal was not properly before them for two main reasons. First, the Defendant's unconditional plea, when voluntarily made after advice of counsel and with full understanding of the consequences, waives objections to prior defects in the proceedings and operates as a waiver of statutory or constitutional rights, including the right to appeal. Second, the alleged error was not preserved by challenging the plea in district court through a motion to withdraw or otherwise. The Court determined that the Defendant is limited to raising his arguments in collateral proceedings such as habeas corpus, leaving nothing for the Court to review on direct appeal (paras 4-6).