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 trafficking by possession with intent to distribute. The case arose from evidence seized during an investigation, which the Defendant argued was obtained unlawfully as "fruit of the poisonous tree." The Defendant entered into a plea agreement, which resulted in the dismissal of additional charges of possession of drug paraphernalia and tampering with evidence.
Procedural History
- District Court, Eddy County: The Defendant was convicted of trafficking by possession with intent to distribute and sentenced to nine years, with four years to be served in custody and five years suspended on supervised probation.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained unlawfully and that counsel’s failure to reserve the right to appeal this denial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the five years of supervised probation imposed as part of the suspended sentence was not part of the plea agreement and was not adequately explained by counsel.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the Defendant waived the right to appeal the motion to suppress by failing to reserve it in the plea agreement and that the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. The Plaintiff also argued that the sentence imposed was within the court’s discretion and consistent with the plea agreement.
Legal Issues
- Did the Defendant waive the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress by failing to reserve it in the plea agreement?
- Did the failure of defense counsel to reserve the right to appeal the motion to suppress constitute ineffective assistance of counsel?
- Did the district court abuse its discretion in sentencing the Defendant to five years of supervised probation for the suspended portion of the sentence?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction and sentence.
- The motion to amend the docketing statement to include a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was denied.
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Castillo and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
Waiver of Appeal Rights: The Court held that the Defendant waived the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress by failing to reserve this right in the plea agreement. A knowing and voluntary guilty plea generally waives objections to prior defects in the proceedings, including the right to appeal unless specifically reserved.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The Court denied the motion to amend the docketing statement to include a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case, as the record did not demonstrate that counsel’s performance fell below a reasonable standard or that the Defendant was prejudiced. The plea agreement was the result of negotiations, and the decision not to reserve the right to appeal appeared to be a tactical choice.
Sentence: The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s imposition of five years of supervised probation for the suspended portion of the sentence. The Defendant did not challenge the proposed disposition in her memorandum in opposition, and the sentence was consistent with the plea agreement.
Habeas Relief: The Court noted that the Defendant could still seek appellate review of the denial of the motion to suppress by filing a habeas corpus petition, as ineffective assistance of counsel claims are typically addressed in such proceedings.