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 convicted for abandonment of a child resulting in death. The district court determined this conviction to be a serious violent offense under the earned meritorious deductions statute (EMD), affecting the Defendant's eligibility for good time credit.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the district court's findings were adequate to support its determination that the Defendant’s conviction was a serious violent offense, emphasizing the nature of the offense and the injuries sustained by the victim.
• Appellant (Defendant): Challenged the district court's designation of the offense as a serious violent offense, presumably arguing that the findings did not meet the required legal standard to support such a designation.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's designation of the Defendant's conviction for abandonment of a child resulting in death as a serious violent offense was supported by adequate findings under the earned meritorious deductions statute.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s designation of the Defendant's conviction as a serious violent offense and remanded for sentencing in accordance with the EMD.

Reasons

• Per Bogardus, J., concurred by Medina, J., and Duffy, J.: The Court of Appeals found that the district court failed to make express findings demonstrating that the crime was committed in a physically violent manner with intent to do serious harm or with recklessness in the face of knowledge that one’s acts are reasonably likely to result in serious harm, as required by precedent (paras 2-3). The State's memorandum in opposition did not identify any findings by the district court addressing the Defendant's intent or recklessness, which are necessary to designate an offense as a serious violent offense under the EMD statute (para 3). The Court also noted that it is not their role to make such findings for the first time on appeal (para 4). Furthermore, the Court declined the State's request to overturn precedent, emphasizing the importance of stare decisis in the judicial process (para 5).