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, while incarcerated, sought a reduction in the incarceration portion of his sentence and requested that it be converted into probation. He argued that he had matured, worked toward obtaining his GED, and began paying restitution during his time in prison.

Procedural History

• District Court, October 14, 2009: The Defendant's sentence was affirmed, and a mandate was issued.
• District Court, April 20, 2010: The Defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, which was denied on the grounds that it was untimely and the court lacked jurisdiction to consider it.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his sentence should be reconsidered due to his personal growth, educational efforts, and restitution payments while incarcerated. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging that his attorney failed to inform him about the appeal's conclusion and did not assist him in filing a timely motion to reconsider.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider the Defendant's untimely motion to reconsider his sentence.
• Whether the Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was viable.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to reconsider his sentence.
• The Court of Appeals denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to include a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Reasons

Per Castillo J. (Wechsler and Garcia JJ. concurring):

The Court held that the Defendant's motion to reconsider his sentence was untimely under Rule 5-801(B) NMRA, which requires such motions to be filed within 90 days of sentencing or the issuance of a mandate affirming the judgment. The Defendant filed his motion well beyond this period, and as a result, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it.

Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court found that the Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case. The record did not support his allegations that his attorney failed to assist him in filing a timely motion or that he made efforts to seek sentence modification earlier. The Court emphasized that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be supported by evidence in the record, which was absent in this case.

The Court concluded that the Defendant's contentions lacked merit and denied his motion to amend the docketing statement.