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 charged with custodial interference after allegedly failing to comply with a 1997 Missouri court order that modified custody of his three children, granting primary custody to their mother. The Defendant, who had physical custody under a 1992 Missouri divorce decree, believed the 1997 modification was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, as neither parent nor the children resided in Missouri at the time. The Defendant moved to New Mexico with the children in 1994, while the mother resided in Texas. The Defendant was later arrested and indicted on three counts of custodial interference and one count of escape from a peace officer (paras 1-8).
Procedural History
- District Court, May 28, 2003: The Defendant entered a no contest plea to three counts of custodial interference and one count of escape from a peace officer. The court denied the Defendant's motion to withdraw the plea and sentenced him to consecutive terms totaling six years, suspending all but 30 months (paras 6-8).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the Missouri court lacked jurisdiction to modify the 1992 custody order, rendering the 1997 modification invalid. Claimed his plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent due to ineffective assistance of counsel and personal distress. Asserted that the district court violated double jeopardy protections by convicting and sentencing him on three separate counts of custodial interference for a single, continuous act (paras 9, 13, 29-30, 34).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant waived the jurisdictional defense by entering a no contest plea. Argued that the Defendant's interference with the mother's visitation rights under the 1992 order or a 1995 stipulated agreement could independently support the custodial interference charges. Maintained that the district court properly denied the motion to withdraw the plea and that the convictions did not violate double jeopardy (paras 17, 19, 34).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court err in refusing to address the Missouri court's jurisdiction to modify the custody order after the Defendant entered a no contest plea?
- Should the Defendant have been allowed to withdraw his no contest plea before sentencing?
- Did the district court violate double jeopardy protections by convicting and sentencing the Defendant on three counts of custodial interference for a single, continuous act?
Disposition
- The district court's refusal to address the Missouri court's jurisdiction after the plea was upheld.
- The case was remanded to determine whether the Defendant presented a fair and just reason to withdraw his plea.
- The district court's convictions and consecutive sentences for three counts of custodial interference were reversed for violating double jeopardy protections (paras 19, 33, 37-38).
Reasons
Per Bustamante CJ. (Wechsler and Sutin JJ. concurring):
Jurisdiction: The district court had jurisdiction over the criminal charges. The Defendant waived the Missouri jurisdictional defense by entering a no contest plea. However, the district court could consider the jurisdictional issue as a factor in deciding whether to allow the Defendant to withdraw his plea (paras 11-19).
Withdrawal of Plea: The court clarified that pre-sentence plea withdrawals should be allowed for any fair and just reason unless the prosecution is substantially prejudiced. The Defendant raised concerns about ineffective assistance of counsel, lack of understanding of his defenses, and personal distress. The district court applied the incorrect standard of manifest injustice, warranting remand for reconsideration under the clarified standard (paras 20-33).
Double Jeopardy: The custodial interference charges stemmed from a single custody order and continuous conduct involving all three children. The Defendant's actions were not distinct or separate for each child, making the convictions and consecutive sentences for three counts a violation of double jeopardy protections. The court ordered the charges to merge into a single count if the plea is not withdrawn (paras 34-37).