AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was charged with receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle and escape from a community custody release program. After consolidating the cases, the Defendant entered a plea agreement, pleading no contest to the charges. The agreement included a total sentence of four-and-a-half years of incarceration, with provisions for sentence enhancement based on the Defendant's prior felony convictions if he violated probation or parole terms. The Defendant was released from custody under conditions of probation after receiving credit for presentence confinement. Subsequently, the Defendant was arrested for battery against a household member and resisting an officer, leading to probation revocation proceedings (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• State v. Powers, No. 31,341 (Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2011): The Court reversed the sentence enhancement for the possession of a stolen vehicle conviction but affirmed the enhancement of the escape conviction and remanded for sentencing accordingly.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court lost jurisdiction to enhance his sentence for escape from a community custody release program because he completed his term of probation before the court ordered his probation revoked and his sentence enhanced. He contended that his probation began during his presentence confinement, thus, by the time of revocation, the court had no jurisdiction (para 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court lost jurisdiction to revoke the Defendant's probation and enhance his sentence for the escape conviction due to the completion of his term of probation before the revocation and enhancement order.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order revoking the Defendant’s probation and enhancing his sentence for the escape conviction (para 16).

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Linda M. Vanzi, J., M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring): The Court found that the Defendant's argument misconstrued the timeline of his probation term. The Defendant's probation did not begin until his release from custody, ending in November 2011, not November 2010 as he claimed. Thus, at the time of the probation revocation in May 2011, the district court retained jurisdiction to revoke probation and enhance the sentence. The Court also held that the Defendant had no reasonable expectation of finality in his sentence due to the plea agreement's terms, which acknowledged potential enhancements for probation violations. The Court rejected the Defendant's interpretation that his probation began during his presentence confinement, noting no legal basis requiring the district court to credit presentence confinement towards the probation term. The Court concluded that the district court did not err in its sentencing order or in revoking probation and enhancing the sentence for the escape conviction (paras 6-15).