State v. Barrs ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •  1   This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please
    2   see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.
    3   Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated
    4   errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does
    5   not include the filing date.
    6        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
    7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
    8          Plaintiff-Appellee,
    9 v.                                                                           NO. 29,543
    10 JOE BARRS,
    11          Defendant-Appellant.
    12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
    13 Robert Schwartz, District Judge
    14 Gary K. King, Attorney General
    15 Santa Fe, NM
    16 for Appellee
    17 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender
    18 Allison H. Jaramillo, Assistant Appellate Defender
    19 Santa Fe, NM
    20 for Appellant
    21                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
    22 WECHSLER, Judge.
    1        Defendant appeals the sentence imposed on him pursuant to his plea agreement.
    2 We proposed to dismiss the appeal reasoning that, because Defendant entered into a
    3 plea agreement, he is not an aggrieved party and is not entitled to appeal. We have
    4 received a response from Defendant in which he does not dispute our proposal that he
    5 is not an aggrieved party, but does claim that his counsel was ineffective. Defendant
    6 claims that his counsel informed him that he would receive only probation if he signed
    7 the plea agreement. However, there is nothing in the record to support Defendant’s
    8 claim. See State v. Hunter, 
    2001-NMCA-078
    , ¶ 18, 
    131 N.M. 76
    , 
    33 P.3d 296
    9 (“Matters not of record present no issue for review.”). We note that, where the record
    10 does not include documentation essential to a claim of ineffective assistance of
    11 counsel, habeas corpus proceedings are the preferred method for addressing such
    12 claims. State v. Grogan, 
    2007-NMSC-039
    , ¶ 9, 
    142 N.M. 107
    , 
    163 P.3d 494
    .
    13        For the reasons discussed in our calendar notice, we dismiss the appeal.
    14        IT IS SO ORDERED.
    15                                                ______________________________
    16                                                JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
    17 WE CONCUR:
    18 ______________________________
    19 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge
    2
    1 _______________________________
    2 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 29,543

Filed Date: 1/19/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014