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 a guilty plea to charges of criminal sexual contact of a minor and child abuse, resulting in a sentence of twelve years of incarceration. The plea agreement included a waiver of the right to appeal, provided the sentence was within the agreed range of three to twenty years. During sentencing, the district court mentioned race, which the Defendant argued was a constitutional violation. (paras 1-4)
Procedural History
- District Court, December 4, 2024: The Defendant was sentenced to twelve years of incarceration following a guilty plea. (paras 1-4)
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court's mention of race during sentencing violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, constituting a jurisdictional error that should allow for an appeal despite the waiver. (paras 5-6)
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Does an alleged constitutional violation in the sentencing process constitute a jurisdictional error allowing an appeal despite a waiver in the plea agreement? (paras 6-9)
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed. (para 15)
Reasons
Per Yohalem J. (Medina and Wray JJ. concurring):
The court held that an unconditional guilty plea waives the right to appeal non-jurisdictional issues, including constitutional claims, unless the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that the district court had jurisdiction as the sentence was authorized by statute and within the agreed range. The mention of race, while potentially erroneous, did not deprive the court of jurisdiction. The Defendant may seek post-judgment relief through habeas corpus or other means. (paras 6-14)