This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 30,506 9 RHONDA TRUJILLO, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY 12 William A. Sanchez, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Rhonda Trujillo 17 Grants, NM 18 Pro se Appellant 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 CASTILLO, Judge. 212 Pro se Defendant filed a doc keting statement with this Court claiming that the 1 sentence imposed for her convictions for two counts of homicide by vehicle and one 2 count of child abuse was an illegal sentence. We proposed to dismiss in a calendar 3 notice, and Defendant has responded with a memorandum in opposition. We have 4 considered Defendant’s arguments, but we are not persuaded by them. We therefore 5 dismiss the appeal. 6 Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charges in this case. [RP 109] See 7 State v. Hodge , 118 N.M. 410, 414, 882 P.2d 1, 5 (1994) (stating that a plea of guilty 8 or nolo contendere waives any objection toprior defects in the proceedings and 9 waives statutory and constitutional ri ghts, including a right to appeal); see also State 10 v. Dominguez , 2007-NMSC-060, ¶ 14, 142 N.M. 811, 171 P.3d 750 (holding that the 11 defendant failed to preserve his objection tohis guilty plea because he failed to move 12 to withdraw his plea). The district court determined that the two charges of homicide 13 by vehicle were serious violent offenses. [RP 110] The district court did not enter 14 findings supporting its determination that th e offenses were serious violent offenses 15 as discussed in State v. Morales , 2002-NMCA-016, ¶ 16, 131 N.M. 530, 39 P.3d 747. 16 The judgment and sentence was filed on July 14, 2009. [RP 109] 17 Defendant did not move to withdraw her plea, and she did not file a notice of 18 appeal from the judgment and sentence. Instead, she filed a motion on October 7, 193 2009, asking the district court to reconsider its determination that two of the charges 1 were serious violent offenses. [RP 113] Defendant claimed that the district court 2 should exercise its discretion to reconsider its designation of the charges as serious 3 violent offenses because Defendant had entered a plea “in an effort to assume full 4 responsibility for this incident and to not burden either the Sate or the victim’s (sic) 5 family (sic) with the trauma and expenses of a trial.” [RP 114] The State, in its 6 response, referred to evidence that could support the determination that the offenses 7 were serious violent offenses. [RP 119] Th e district court did not enter an order on 8 Defendant’s motion. The case came to this Court when Defendant filed her docketing 9 statement. On appeal, for the first time, Defendant claims that her sentence is illegal 10 because the district court made no finding under Moralesthat the offenses were 11 committed with an intent to do serious bodily harm. SeeNMSA 1978, § 33-2-34 12 (L)(4)(o) (2006) (explaining earned meritorious deductions). 13 Notice of Appeal 14 Initially, we note that Defendant filed no notice of appeal in the district court 15 in this case, either from the judgment and sentence or based on the filing of the motion 16 to reconsider her senten ce. Under Rules 12-201(A )(2) and 12-202(A) NMRA, a 17 notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the judgment and must be filed 18 with the district court clerk. Defendant f iled a notice of appeal with this Court almost 194 one year after the judgment and sentence was filed. [Ct. App. File] However, the 1 notice filed with this Court was not timely and was not filed in the district court as 2 required by our appellate rules. In addition, although Defe ndant claims that she has 3 now sent a notice of appeal to the district court, the referenced pleading is not in the 4 record. Cf. State v. Martin , 101 N.M. 595, 603, 686 P.2d 937, 945 (1984) (stating that 5 court may not consider matters not of record). 6 We are aware that, in certain criminal cases, there is a conclusive presumption 7 of ineffective assistance of counsel where a notice of appeal is not filed within the 8 time limit required. State v. Duran , 105 N.M. 231, 232, 731 P. 2d 374, 375 (Ct. App. 9 1986). However, that presumption is not extended to cases such as this where a 10 defendant has entered a gu ilty or no contest plea. See State v. Peppers , 110 N.M. 393, 11 399, 796 P.2d 614, 620 (Ct. App. 1990). Inaddition, Defendant has chosen to 12 represent herself in this appeal, and Defendant cannot rely on the presumption that the 13 defects regarding her notice of appeal was due to ineffective assistance of counsel. 14 Cf. Newsome v. Farer , 103 N.M. 415, 419, 708 P.2d 327, 331 (1985) (holding that pro 15 se litigants are held to the “same standardof conduct and compliance with court rules, 16 procedures, and orders as ar e members of the bar”). Wehold that, because a timely 17 notice of appeal from the judgment and sentence was not filed by Defendant, the 18 appeal should be dismissed. 195 Motion to Reconsider Sentence 1 It is not clear to this Court under what authority Defendant filed the motion to 2 reconsider her sentence. To the extent that the motion was filed pursuant to NMSA 3 1978, Section 39-1-1 (1917), it was not filed w ithin thirty days after the judgment and 4 sentence was entered in this cas e. Therefore, we hold that the district court had lost 5 control over the case and could not hear a motion under Section 39-1-1. To the extent 6 that Defendant’s motion was filed pursuant to Rule 5-801 NMRA, it was filed within 7 the required ninety-day time limit. However, our Supreme Court has held that earned 8 meritorious deductions under Section 33-2-34 is an administrative responsibility and 9 have no bearing on the validity of the original sentence imposed. State v.Aqui , 104 10 N.M. 345, 348, 721 P.2d 771, 774 (1986), limited in part on othe r grounds by Brooks 11 v. Shanks , 118 N.M. 716, 719-20, 885 P.2d 637, 640-41 (1994). The Court in Aqui 12 stated that claims of entitlement to meritorious deductions challenge the execution of 13 a sentence, not the sentence itself, and su ch claims cannot be brought under Rule 5- 14 801. Aqui , 104 N.M. at 348, 721 P.2d at 774. We hold that Defendant’s motion could 15 not be brought under Rule 5-801, and her claim that the sentence imposed by the 16 district court was illegal due to the eff ect on her opportunity to earned meritorious 17 deductions must fail. Based on the fact that Defendant’s motion would have been 18 untimely under Section 39-1-1 and the fact that the motion could not be categorized 196 as a motion under Rule 5-801, as well as the Supreme Court’s holding in Aquithat 1 factors under Section 33-2-34 have no bearing on the validity of the original sentence 2 imposed, we hold that Defendant’s appeal should be dismissed. 3 For the reasons discussed in this opinion and those included in our calendar 4 notice, we dismiss Defendant’s appeal. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

___________________________________ 7 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 8 WE CONCUR: 9

__________________________________ 10 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 11

__________________________________ 12 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 13