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 plea of no contest to a charge of child abuse resulting in death. A plea agreement was reached, under which the State agreed to recommend a sentence of six months of incarceration and up to eighteen months in an in-house mental health treatment program. However, the district court imposed the maximum sentence of nine years of imprisonment without offering the Defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea after rejecting the State's sentencing recommendation (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court, February 15, 1989: The district court sentenced the Defendant to nine years of imprisonment, rejecting the State's sentencing recommendation under the plea agreement (para 2).
- District Court, March 16, 1989: The Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the sentence was denied (para 2).
- District Court, March 17, 1989: The Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea was denied (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by failing to allow him to withdraw his plea after rejecting the State's sentencing recommendation. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and that the prosecutor violated the plea agreement by presenting prejudicial information to the court (para 2).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant's claims were not preserved for appeal and that the district court's actions did not constitute fundamental error (paras 3, 6).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court commit fundamental error by failing to allow the Defendant to withdraw his plea after rejecting the State's sentencing recommendation?
- Can the appellate court consider the issue of the district court's failure to comply with Rule 5-304(D) when it was raised for the first time on appeal?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case, instructing the district court either to resentence the Defendant in accordance with the plea agreement or to allow the Defendant to withdraw his plea (para 10).
Reasons
Per Hartz J. (Alarid and Apodaca JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the district court's failure to comply with Rule 5-304(D) constituted fundamental error. Rule 5-304(D) requires the court to inform the Defendant that it is not bound by the plea agreement, allow the Defendant to withdraw the plea, and advise the Defendant of the potential for a less favorable disposition if the plea is maintained. The district court failed to follow this procedure, as established in Eller v. State, 92 N.M. 52 (1978) (paras 4, 7).
The Court determined that the error was clear and affected the outcome, as the Defendant likely would have withdrawn his plea had the district court complied with Rule 5-304(D). The maximum sentence imposed and the Defendant's prompt motion to withdraw his plea further supported this conclusion (paras 7-8).
The Court also held that the issue could be considered on appeal despite not being raised in the district court, as it involved fundamental error affecting the validity of the plea (paras 6-7).
Finally, the Court declined the State's request to certify the case to the New Mexico Supreme Court for reconsideration of Eller, noting that the Supreme Court had not modified Rule 5-304(D) since the decision and could revisit the issue by granting certiorari in this case (para 9).