Opinion ID: 1917458
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Velasquez's Contentions

Text: Velasquez contends that the Superior Court abused its discretion by failing to grant his motion for post-conviction relief. According to Velasquez, the TIS form and comments made by his trial counsel indicate that he was unaware of a minimum sentence of imprisonment when he pled nolo contendere. Velasquez argues that his response of No to ¿Existe pena mínima obligatoria? [9] and failing to respond to De ser éste el caso, ¿Cúal es? on the TIS form indicate that he was not aware of the minimum sentence on the charges. Velasquez also argues that his trial counsel's statement that he went with Velasquez through the TIS form, line by line, reinforces the assertion that Velasquez was unaware of the minimum sentence because there was a blank space for the second question. Velasquez acknowledges that in his exchange with the Superior Court during the plea colloquy, he replied yes when the judge asked if he understood that the sentence has to start at ten years, up to twenty-five years. According to Velasquez, the judge's question was erroneous because he never used language to indicate that there was a minimum sentence.