guilty plea defense in New Mexico

8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (13)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Tsethlikaigreen nmctapp · 1989 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1996–2020 2 sentences 2020State v. Sanchez, 1996-NMCA-089 , ¶ 11, 122 N.M. 280 , 923 P.2d 1165 ; see State v. Wood, 1994-NMCA-060 , ¶ 19, 117 N.M. 682 , 875 P.2d 1113 (stating that “a factual basis must appear in the record” to support a double jeopardy claim); State v. Jackson, 1993- NMCA-092, ¶¶ 4, 18-19, 116 N.M. 130 , 860 P.2d 772 (analyzing a double jeopardy claim from facts established during the sentencing hearing); State v. Tsethlikai, 1989- NMCA-107, ¶¶ 2, 8-9, 109 N.M. 371 , 785 P.2d 282 (analyzing a double jeopardy claim from facts in a sentencing memorandum). {21} To support his claim, Defendant points us t 2020State v. Sanchez, 1996-NMCA-089 , ¶ 11, 122 N.M. 280 , 923 P.2d 1165 ; see State v. Wood, 1994-NMCA-060 , ¶ 19, 117 N.M. 682 , 875 P.2d 1113 (stating that “a factual basis must appear in the record” to support a double jeopardy claim); State v. Jackson, 1993- NMCA-092, ¶¶ 4, 18-19, 116 N.M. 130 , 860 P.2d 772 (analyzing a double jeopardy claim from facts established during the sentencing hearing); State v. Tsethlikai, 1989- NMCA-107, ¶¶ 2, 8-9, 109 N.M. 371 , 785 P.2d 282 (analyzing a double jeopardy claim from facts in a sentencing memorandum). {21} To support his claim, Defendant points us t	1	2
State v. Jacksongreen nmctapp · 1993 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1996–2020 2 sentences 2020State v. Sanchez, 1996-NMCA-089 , ¶ 11, 122 N.M. 280 , 923 P.2d 1165 ; see State v. Wood, 1994-NMCA-060 , ¶ 19, 117 N.M. 682 , 875 P.2d 1113 (stating that “a factual basis must appear in the record” to support a double jeopardy claim); State v. Jackson, 1993- NMCA-092, ¶¶ 4, 18-19, 116 N.M. 130 , 860 P.2d 772 (analyzing a double jeopardy claim from facts established during the sentencing hearing); State v. Tsethlikai, 1989- NMCA-107, ¶¶ 2, 8-9, 109 N.M. 371 , 785 P.2d 282 (analyzing a double jeopardy claim from facts in a sentencing memorandum). {21} To support his claim, Defendant points us t 2020State v. Sanchez, 1996-NMCA-089 , ¶ 11, 122 N.M. 280 , 923 P.2d 1165 ; see State v. Wood, 1994-NMCA-060 , ¶ 19, 117 N.M. 682 , 875 P.2d 1113 (stating that “a factual basis must appear in the record” to support a double jeopardy claim); State v. Jackson, 1993- NMCA-092, ¶¶ 4, 18-19, 116 N.M. 130 , 860 P.2d 772 (analyzing a double jeopardy claim from facts established during the sentencing hearing); State v. Tsethlikai, 1989- NMCA-107, ¶¶ 2, 8-9, 109 N.M. 371 , 785 P.2d 282 (analyzing a double jeopardy claim from facts in a sentencing memorandum). {21} To support his claim, Defendant points us t	1	2
People v. Cocuzzagreen mich · 1982 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017Pl. 2 2010) (noting that after receiving a full plea colloquy the defendant said he wanted 3 to re-evaluate his situation to withdraw his proposed guilty plea); People v.Cocuzza, 4 318 N.W.2d 465, 465 (Mich. 1982) (noting that during the plea hearing the defendant 5 changed his mind about pleading guilty); Banks v. United States, 262 A.2d 110 , 110- 6 11 (D.C. 1970) (noting that during the guilty plea hearing it became apparent that the 7 defendant did not desire to confess his guilt, and a trial date was set). 2017Pl. 2010) (noting that after receiving a full plea colloquy the defendant said he wanted to re-evaluate his situation to withdraw his proposed guilty plea); People v.Cocuzza, 318 N.W.2d 465, 465 (Mich. 1982) (noting that during the plea hearing the defendant changed his mind about pleading guilty); Banks v. United States, 262 A.2d 110, 110-11 (D.C. 1970) (noting that during the guilty plea hearing it became apparent that the defendant did not desire to confess his guilt, and a trial date was set).	1	2
Banks v. United Statesgreen dc · 1970 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017Pl. 2 2010) (noting that after receiving a full plea colloquy the defendant said he wanted 3 to re-evaluate his situation to withdraw his proposed guilty plea); People v.Cocuzza, 4 318 N.W.2d 465, 465 (Mich. 1982) (noting that during the plea hearing the defendant 5 changed his mind about pleading guilty); Banks v. United States, 262 A.2d 110 , 110- 6 11 (D.C. 1970) (noting that during the guilty plea hearing it became apparent that the 7 defendant did not desire to confess his guilt, and a trial date was set). 2017Pl. 2010) (noting that after receiving a full plea colloquy the defendant said he wanted to re-evaluate his situation to withdraw his proposed guilty plea); People v.Cocuzza, 318 N.W.2d 465, 465 (Mich. 1982) (noting that during the plea hearing the defendant changed his mind about pleading guilty); Banks v. United States, 262 A.2d 110, 110-11 (D.C. 1970) (noting that during the guilty plea hearing it became apparent that the defendant did not desire to confess his guilt, and a trial date was set).	1	2
State v. Woodgreen nmctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020State v. Sanchez, 1996-NMCA-089 , ¶ 11, 122 N.M. 280 , 923 P.2d 1165 ; see State v. Wood, 1994-NMCA-060 , ¶ 19, 117 N.M. 682 , 875 P.2d 1113 (stating that “a factual basis must appear in the record” to support a double jeopardy claim); State v. Jackson, 1993- NMCA-092, ¶¶ 4, 18-19, 116 N.M. 130 , 860 P.2d 772 (analyzing a double jeopardy claim from facts established during the sentencing hearing); State v. Tsethlikai, 1989- NMCA-107, ¶¶ 2, 8-9, 109 N.M. 371 , 785 P.2d 282 (analyzing a double jeopardy claim from facts in a sentencing memorandum). {21} To support his claim, Defendant points us t	1	1
State v. Woodgreen nmctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020State v. Sanchez, 1996-NMCA-089 , ¶ 11, 122 N.M. 280 , 923 P.2d 1165 ; see State v. Wood, 1994-NMCA-060 , ¶ 19, 117 N.M. 682 , 875 P.2d 1113 (stating that “a factual basis must appear in the record” to support a double jeopardy claim); State v. Jackson, 1993- NMCA-092, ¶¶ 4, 18-19, 116 N.M. 130 , 860 P.2d 772 (analyzing a double jeopardy claim from facts established during the sentencing hearing); State v. Tsethlikai, 1989- NMCA-107, ¶¶ 2, 8-9, 109 N.M. 371 , 785 P.2d 282 (analyzing a double jeopardy claim from facts in a sentencing memorandum). {21} To support his claim, Defendant points us t	1	1
State v. Barbergreen nm · 2004 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010See State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 18 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (noting that fundamental error can arise where " 'a fundamental unfairness within the system ... would undermine judicial integrity if left unchecked’ ” (quoting State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 21 , 128 N.M. 711 , 998 P.2d 176 )); see also State v. Bencomo, 109 N.M. 724, 725 , 790 P.2d 521, 522 (Ct.App.1990) (reversing the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under the doctrine of fundamental error). 7 . 2010See State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 18 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (noting that fundamental error can arise where " 'a fundamental unfairness within the system ... would undermine judicial integrity if left unchecked’ ” (quoting State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 21 , 128 N.M. 711 , 998 P.2d 176 )); see also State v. Bencomo, 109 N.M. 724, 725 , 790 P.2d 521, 522 (Ct.App.1990) (reversing the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under the doctrine of fundamental error). 7 .	1	1
State v. Cunninghamgreen nm · 2000 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010See State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 18 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (noting that fundamental error can arise where " 'a fundamental unfairness within the system ... would undermine judicial integrity if left unchecked’ ” (quoting State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 21 , 128 N.M. 711 , 998 P.2d 176 )); see also State v. Bencomo, 109 N.M. 724, 725 , 790 P.2d 521, 522 (Ct.App.1990) (reversing the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under the doctrine of fundamental error). 7 . 2010See State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 18 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (noting that fundamental error can arise where " 'a fundamental unfairness within the system ... would undermine judicial integrity if left unchecked’ ” (quoting State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 21 , 128 N.M. 711 , 998 P.2d 176 )); see also State v. Bencomo, 109 N.M. 724, 725 , 790 P.2d 521, 522 (Ct.App.1990) (reversing the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under the doctrine of fundamental error). 7 .	1	1
State v. Bencomogreen nmctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010See State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 18 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (noting that fundamental error can arise where " 'a fundamental unfairness within the system ... would undermine judicial integrity if left unchecked’ ” (quoting State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 21 , 128 N.M. 711 , 998 P.2d 176 )); see also State v. Bencomo, 109 N.M. 724, 725 , 790 P.2d 521, 522 (Ct.App.1990) (reversing the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under the doctrine of fundamental error). 7 . 2010See State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 18 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (noting that fundamental error can arise where " 'a fundamental unfairness within the system ... would undermine judicial integrity if left unchecked’ ” (quoting State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 21 , 128 N.M. 711 , 998 P.2d 176 )); see also State v. Bencomo, 109 N.M. 724, 725 , 790 P.2d 521, 522 (Ct.App.1990) (reversing the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under the doctrine of fundamental error). 7 .	1	1
State v. Alingoggreen nm · 1994 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 1 sentence 2002Alingog, 117 N.M. at 759-60, 877 P.2d at 565-66.	1	1
State v. Alingoggreen nmctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See id. at 653-56 , 866 P.2d at 381-84 . {13} On certiorari, this Court noted that, under Johnson and Brown, the guilty plea did not bar a subsequent prosecution until sentence had been entered on the plea. 2002See id. at 653-56 , 866 P.2d at 381-84 . {13} On certiorari, this Court noted that, under Johnson and Brown, the guilty plea did not bar a subsequent prosecution until sentence had been entered on the plea.	1	1
State v. Alingoggreen nm · 1994 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 1 sentence 2002Alingog, 117 N.M. at 759-60, 877 P.2d at 565-66.	1	1
State v. Handagreen nmctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996See State v. Handa, 120 N.M. 38, 41-42 , 897 P.2d 225, 228-29 (Ct.App.) (using facts from a pretrial motion to strike and from a sentencing memorandum to determine double jeopardy claim), cert. denied, 119 N.M. 771 , 895 P.2d 671 (1995); State v. Jackson, 116 N.M. 130, 132 , 860 P.2d 772, 774 (Ct.App.) (basing double jeopardy decision upon summary of facts put on the record at plea hearing), cert. denied, 115 N.M. 795 , 858 P.2d 1274 (1993); Tsethlikai, 109 N.M. at 372-74 , 785 P.2d at 283-85 (using sentencing memorandum for double jeopardy analysis). 1996See State v. Handa, 120 N.M. 38, 41-42 , 897 P.2d 225, 228-29 (Ct.App.) (using facts from a pretrial motion to strike and from a sentencing memorandum to determine double jeopardy claim), cert. denied, 119 N.M. 771 , 895 P.2d 671 (1995); State v. Jackson, 116 N.M. 130, 132 , 860 P.2d 772, 774 (Ct.App.) (basing double jeopardy decision upon summary of facts put on the record at plea hearing), cert. denied, 115 N.M. 795 , 858 P.2d 1274 (1993); Tsethlikai, 109 N.M. at 372-74 , 785 P.2d at 283-85 (using sentencing memorandum for double jeopardy analysis).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Sanchez green nmctapp · 1996 2 sentences 2020State v. Sanchez, 1996-NMCA-089 , ¶ 11, 122 N.M. 280 , 923 P.2d 1165 ; see State v. Wood, 1994-NMCA-060 , ¶ 19, 117 N.M. 682 , 875 P.2d 1113 (stating that “a factual basis must appear in the record” to support a double jeopardy claim); State v. Jackson, 1993- NMCA-092, ¶¶ 4, 18-19, 116 N.M. 130 , 860 P.2d 772 (analyzing a double jeopardy claim from facts established during the sentencing hearing); State v. Tsethlikai, 1989- NMCA-107, ¶¶ 2, 8-9, 109 N.M. 371 , 785 P.2d 282 (analyzing a double jeopardy claim from facts in a sentencing memorandum). {21} To support his claim, Defendant points us t 2020State v. Sanchez, 1996-NMCA-089 , ¶ 11, 122 N.M. 280 , 923 P.2d 1165 ; see State v. Wood, 1994-NMCA-060 , ¶ 19, 117 N.M. 682 , 875 P.2d 1113 (stating that “a factual basis must appear in the record” to support a double jeopardy claim); State v. Jackson, 1993- NMCA-092, ¶¶ 4, 18-19, 116 N.M. 130 , 860 P.2d 772 (analyzing a double jeopardy claim from facts established during the sentencing hearing); State v. Tsethlikai, 1989- NMCA-107, ¶¶ 2, 8-9, 109 N.M. 371 , 785 P.2d 282 (analyzing a double jeopardy claim from facts in a sentencing memorandum). {21} To support his claim, Defendant points us t	1	2020–2020
State v. French green nmctapp · 1978 2 sentences 2017Our Supreme Court has held that in order for 11 courts to resolve factual conflicts created by a defendant’s allegations, defendants 12 must have the opportunity to “offer[] some actual evidence in the form of affidavits, 13 testimony, or documentation in support of the allegations.” Id.; cf. State v. French, 14 1978-NMCA-078 , ¶¶ 11, 15, 17, 92 N.M. 94 , 582 P.2d 1307 (holding that the district 15 court did not err in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing based on its factual 16 finding—supported by “[c]ounsel’s representations to the court, the affidavit of 17 counsel’s partner, and [the] 2017Our Supreme Court has held that in order for 11 courts to resolve factual conflicts created by a defendant’s allegations, defendants 12 must have the opportunity to “offer[] some actual evidence in the form of affidavits, 13 testimony, or documentation in support of the allegations.” Id.; cf. State v. French, 14 1978-NMCA-078 , ¶¶ 11, 15, 17, 92 N.M. 94 , 582 P.2d 1307 (holding that the district 15 court did not err in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing based on its factual 16 finding—supported by “[c]ounsel’s representations to the court, the affidavit of 17 counsel’s partner, and [the]	1	2017–2017
State v. Martinez green nmctapp · 1976 2 sentences 1977State v. Roland, 90 N.M. 520 , 565 P.2d 1037 (Ct. App.1977); State v. Martinez, 89 N.M. 729 , 557 P.2d 578 (Ct.App.1976). 1977State v. Roland, 90 N.M. 520 , 565 P.2d 1037 (Ct. App.1977); State v. Martinez, 89 N.M. 729 , 557 P.2d 578 (Ct.App.1976).	1	1977–1977
State v. Roland green nmctapp · 1977 2 sentences 1977State v. Roland, 90 N.M. 520 , 565 P.2d 1037 (Ct. App.1977); State v. Martinez, 89 N.M. 729 , 557 P.2d 578 (Ct.App.1976). 1977State v. Roland, 90 N.M. 520 , 565 P.2d 1037 (Ct. App.1977); State v. Martinez, 89 N.M. 729 , 557 P.2d 578 (Ct.App.1976).	1	1977–1977

Where else courts name it

TN 276 (1971–2026) IN 262 (1974–2026) IL 200 (1975–2026) GA 179 (1975–2026) MO 159 (1972–2025) PA 150 (1968–2026) OH 92 (1993–2024) IA 68 (1975–2024) MS 66 (1995–2025) TX 61 (1978–2023) WI 58 (1980–2026) DE 42 (1976–2025) LA 41 (1983–2025) NY 34 (1979–2025) CA 25 (1965–2025) MN 24 (1987–2026) MD 20 (1973–2026) SC 18 (1984–2025) MI 17 (1971–2020) AL 17 (1977–2024) OR 16 (1981–2019) ID 16 (1990–2024) CT 11 (1970–2009) VA 11 (1981–2025) MA 10 (1978–2025) FL 8 (1993–2023) NM 8 (1977–2020) WA 7 (1976–2026) NJ 6 (1978–2018) CO 6 (1992–2026) KY 6 (2012–2024) MT 5 (2001–2015) AZ 5 (1977–2022) RI 5 (1979–2013) SD 4 (1996–2014) KS 3 (2001–2026) WY 3 (1986–2018) UT 3 (1994–2008) WV 2 (1993–2002) AR 2 (2013–2015)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check