agreement. He agreed that the State could file habitual offender proceedings against him in the event of a probation violation and could use his admission concerning his prior felony convictions. As we have stated, Defendant benefitted from the plea agreement. The habitual offender enhancement at the time of the probation violation carried out the expectation of the parties under the plea agreement. Defendant waived his present argument that the habitual offender enhancement is unlawful. See State v. Sanchez, 2001-NMCA-060, ¶¶ 20-21, 130 N.M. 602, 28 P.3d 1143 (upholding waiver of collateral attack of prior convictions in plea agreement when the defendant subsequently contested their validity at probation revocation); State v. Joanna V, 2003-NMCA-100, ¶¶ 6-10, 134 N.M. 232, 75 P.3d 832 (<HOLDING>). Sentencing Ambiguity {10} Defendant
holding that it is the burden of the party who failed to preserve his argument to demonstrate plain error holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing holding that a party had failed to preserve an argument for appellate review when that party had failed to argue the issue to the trial court either at trial or in his postjudgment motion holding that child failed to preserve argument that detention for violating court orders was illegal by entering plea agreement agreeing to the detention holding that the constitution does not require the government to disclose impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant