State v. Cordova, 331 P.3d 980

This is an unpublished memorandum opinion of the New Mexico Court of Appeals affirming the district court.
Defendant Anthony Cordova appealed the district court’s judgment, sentence, and order denying his amended motion to reconsider.
Cordova pled guilty to 15 of 207 embezzlement counts under a plea agreement.
The plea agreement capped incarceration at no more than four years and six months, plus five years of supervised probation, with restitution arrangements.
Cordova signed the plea agreement and was represented by counsel; the district court accepted and sentenced consistent with the agreement (4 years 6 months; 18 total years potential, with suspension of most terms).
Cordova filed two motions to reconsider which the district court denied; arguments included ineffective assistance and mitigation assertions; the issues on appeal include due process and sentence harshness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the plea knowing and intelligent?	Cordova argues plea was not knowing/voluntary.	Cordova asserts counsel failed to explain terms/waivers.	No abuse; record shows knowing/voluntary plea.
Was counsel ineffective?	Cordova contends counsel failed to properly counsel/complete discovery.	Cordova alleges ineffective assistance by prior counsel.	No direct-appeal showing of prima facie ineffective assistance.
Were due process rights violated by denying hearings on reconsideration?	Cordova asserts denial of opportunity to present mitigation warranted a hearing.	Cordova maintains due process requires mitigation evidence be considered.	No due process violation; hearing not required where motions lack relief-creating claims.
Was the sentence unduly harsh?	Cordova argues punishment was cruel/unusual.	Cordova asserts sentence beyond authorized range or improperly mitigated.	Not properly presented; and sentence was within the plea/statutory framework.

State v. Sosa, 1996-NMSC-057 (1996) (review of reconsideration motions for abuse of discretion)
State v. Barnett, 1998-NMCA-105 (1998-NMCA) (plea validity and voluntariness considerations)
State v. Cumpton, 2000-NMCA-033 (2000-NMCA) (no obligation to depart from basic sentence; mitigation discretion)
State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027 (2002-NMSC) (ineffective assistance claims generally via habeas corpus)
State v. Grogan, 2007-NMSC-039 (2007-NMSC) (prefers habeas corpus for ineffective assistance claims)
State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 (2012-NMSC) (plea procedures ensure defendant’s understanding in open court)
State v. Cawley, 1990-NMSC-088 (1990-NMSC) (no abuse of discretion when sentence within statutory range)
State v. Vasquez, 2010-NMCA-041 (2010-NMCA) (no abuse if sentence authorized by law)
State v. Chavarria, 2009-NMSC-020 (2009-NMSC) (cruel/unusual punishment claims waived by unconditional plea)
State v. Montoya, 1970-NMCA-016 (1970-NMCA) (no hearing required where claims do not merit post-conviction relief)