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

• Jose Acevedo was convicted of one count of first-degree felony kidnapping, one count of third-degree felony criminal sexual penetration, and two counts of misdemeanor criminal sexual contact. Following his conviction, a bond was set at $80,000, which required Acevedo not to leave Doña Ana County, New Mexico. AA Fast Action Bail Bonds, Joe Ruiz, and American Surety (collectively referred to as Surety) posted the bond for Acevedo under the condition that he not leave the state of New Mexico. Despite a motion filed by Acevedo to travel to California, which was never ruled upon, Acevedo failed to appear for a scheduled sentencing hearing, leading to the forfeiture of the bond (paras 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County, Fernando R. Macias, District Judge: Entered an order setting bond at $80,000 with specific conditions for Acevedo's release and subsequently entered a judgment of bond forfeiture after Acevedo failed to appear for his sentencing hearing (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Surety: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by allowing Acevedo to be released on bond given his conviction for a violent offense and contended that the bond agreement should have been declared unenforceable. Surety also claimed that the district court failed to adequately consider conditions of release to assure Acevedo's appearance and improperly allowed him to leave the jurisdiction (paras 3, 5-6).
• State of New Mexico (Plaintiff-Appellee): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing Acevedo to be released on bond pending sentencing for a violent offense.
• Whether the bond agreement should have been declared unenforceable due to the nature of Acevedo's offenses.
• Whether the district court failed to adequately consider conditions of release to assure Acevedo's appearance at sentencing.
• Whether the district court improperly allowed Acevedo to leave the jurisdiction (paras 3, 5-6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment on bond forfeiture (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge (Cynthia A. Fry, Judge, and Linda M. Vanzi, Judge, concurring): The Court of Appeals found that Rule 5-402(B) NMRA does not prohibit a defendant’s release pending sentencing and specifically allows for release under the same terms and conditions previously imposed, with no limitation on release for defendants convicted of violent felony offenses. The court declined to read into Rule 5-402(B) limitations similar to those provided for in NMSA 1978, Section 31-11-1 (1988), regarding the release of defendants convicted of violent felony offenses pending appeal, citing the rule's clear and unambiguous language. The court also found that the district court had considered appropriate factors for conditions of release consistent with Rule 5-401(C) and that the conditions of release did not change to allow Acevedo to leave the jurisdiction. The court noted that Acevedo's motion to travel to California was never granted by the district court. The court concluded that Surety's arguments regarding the district court's decision to release Acevedo on bail and the conditions of his release were not persuasive (paras 3-7).