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 of multiple offenses, including escape from jail, battery upon a police officer, resisting or evading an officer, escape from custody, and criminal damage to property. The convictions were based on a plea of no contest, and the Defendant's sentence was enhanced due to prior felony convictions, resulting in a total sentence of 20 years and 6 months, less one day.

Procedural History

• District Court, December 19, 2008: The Defendant was convicted and sentenced following a plea of no contest. The sentence was enhanced based on prior felony convictions.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court judge should have recused himself and that the Defendant should be allowed to appeal the denial of the motion to recuse, despite not reserving this issue in the plea agreement. The Defendant also claimed that the failure to file a notice of appeal in the proper tribunal should be excused under the presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel.
• State-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant’s failure to file a notice of appeal in the proper tribunal should be excused under the presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether the Defendant’s appeal of the district court’s denial of the motion to recuse should be allowed despite not reserving the issue in the plea agreement.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed due to the Defendant’s failure to properly and timely file a notice of appeal in the district court.

Reasons

Per Kennedy J. (Vigil and Vanzi JJ. concurring):

The Court held that the Defendant failed to properly invoke its jurisdiction by not filing a notice of appeal in the district court within the required timeframe, as mandated by Rules 12-202(A) and 12-201(A)(2) NMRA. The Court emphasized that timely filing of a notice of appeal is a mandatory precondition for jurisdiction.

The Court declined to extend the presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel, as established in State v. Duran, to the Defendant’s failure to file the notice of appeal in the proper tribunal. The Court noted that this presumption does not apply to appeals from unconditional pleas of no contest unless exceptional circumstances exist, such as those in State v. Peppers or State v. Eger, where defendants had reserved specific issues for appeal or lacked representation during critical periods.

The Court found that the Defendant did not reserve the right to appeal the denial of the motion to recuse in the plea agreement and explicitly waived his right to appeal in the agreement. Additionally, the Defendant did not seek to withdraw his plea based on the judge’s refusal to recuse. The Court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying deviation from procedural rules, and ignorance of procedural requirements does not constitute an unusual circumstance.