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 charged with three counts of custodial interference after failing to comply with a Missouri court's 1997 custody modification order, which granted primary custody of his children to their mother. The Defendant had moved to New Mexico with the children in 1994 and contested the Missouri court's jurisdiction over the modification. The mother did not register the Missouri order in New Mexico but sought enforcement through local police. The Defendant entered a no-contest plea but later sought to withdraw it, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was not voluntary or knowing (paras 1, 3-6).
Procedural History
- District Court, December 18, 2001: The Defendant entered a no-contest plea to three counts of custodial interference. His subsequent motion to withdraw the plea was denied (paras 1, 6-7).
- Court of Appeals, 2005-NMCA-089, 138 N.M. 96, 117 P.3d 254: The court remanded the case to the district court, holding that the Defendant may withdraw his plea for any "fair and just" reason if the State was not substantially prejudiced. It also found that the Defendant's three convictions violated double jeopardy (paras 1, 8).
Parties' Submissions
- State: Argued that the Defendant's plea was knowing and voluntary and that the district court properly denied the motion to withdraw. It also contended that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the "fair and just" standard instead of the "knowing and voluntary" standard (paras 1, 10).
- Defendant: Claimed his plea was not voluntary or knowing due to ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that his counsel failed to properly advise him on the merits of his defenses, including the Missouri court's lack of jurisdiction, the unregistered custody order, and the possibility of a conditional plea (paras 2, 15-25).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant's no-contest plea knowing and voluntary?
- Did the Defendant receive ineffective assistance of counsel?
- Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that the Defendant's plea was not knowing and voluntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Court remanded the case to the district court with instructions to allow the Defendant to withdraw his plea (paras 2, 34-35).
Reasons
Per Minzner J. (Bosson C.J., Serna, Maes, and Chávez JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the Defendant's plea was not knowing and voluntary because his counsel's performance was deficient and prejudicial. Counsel failed to properly advise the Defendant on the merits of his motion to dismiss, which was based on the Missouri court's lack of jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA). The Court determined that Missouri lacked jurisdiction to modify the custody order because the children and parents no longer had significant connections to Missouri, and substantial evidence about the children's care was located in New Mexico and Texas (paras 15-21).
Counsel also failed to discuss the possibility of a conditional plea, which would have allowed the Defendant to preserve his jurisdictional challenge while resolving the case swiftly. This omission, combined with the erroneous advice about the motion to dismiss, fell below the standard of reasonable professional assistance (paras 25-26).
The Court concluded that the Defendant would not have entered the plea if he had been properly advised, as he consistently sought to challenge the Missouri custody modification. The district court's denial of the motion to withdraw the plea constituted an abuse of discretion (paras 27-28).
The Court emphasized that criminal enforcement of custody orders should generally follow civil proceedings to ensure the best interests of the children are considered. It noted that the prosecution in this case was inconsistent with the legislative intent behind the custodial interference statute (paras 32-33).