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 pleaded guilty to eight counts of criminal sexual penetration in the second degree, no contest to nine additional counts of the same offense, and guilty to one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the third degree. The plea agreement did not include any sentencing agreements, and the Defendant acknowledged understanding the potential maximum penalties. The Defendant was sentenced to 108 years in prison. On appeal, the Defendant argued that his due process rights were violated when the district court denied his request for State funding to obtain an independent expert evaluation for allocution at sentencing.
Procedural History
- District Court, Doña Ana County: The Defendant was sentenced to 108 years in prison after entering a plea agreement.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that his due process rights were violated because the district court denied his request for State funding to obtain an independent expert evaluation to assist in allocution at sentencing.
- Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant waived his right to appeal and any defenses at sentencing by entering into the plea agreement, which explicitly stated that the Defendant waived all motions, defenses, and objections related to sentencing.
Legal Issues
- Did the Defendant waive his right to assert a due process claim regarding the denial of State funding for an independent expert evaluation at sentencing?
- Was the Defendant’s 108-year sentence illegal or outside the authorized sentencing parameters?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the Defendant waived his right to assert a due process claim and that his sentence was within the authorized sentencing parameters.
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Wechsler and Garcia JJ. concurring):
- The Court relied on the precedent set in State v. Chavarria, which held that a guilty plea, when voluntarily made with the advice of counsel, operates as a waiver of statutory or constitutional rights, including the right to appeal. The Defendant’s plea agreement explicitly waived any defenses or objections to sentencing and the right to appeal.
- The Court noted that appellate review of a sentence is limited to jurisdictional errors unless the validity of the plea itself is challenged. The Defendant did not challenge the validity of his plea or argue that his sentence was illegal or outside the authorized sentencing parameters.
- The Court found that the Defendant’s sentence of 108 years was consistent with the applicable sentencing guidelines, as the offenses carried a maximum penalty of nine years per count for second-degree felonies and three years for the third-degree felony. The Defendant’s sentence was well within the statutory maximum of 153 years.
- The Court concluded that the Defendant’s failure to reserve his due process claim at sentencing constituted a waiver of that claim on appeal, and no jurisdictional basis existed to reverse the sentence.