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 case involves the Defendant's appeal from the revocation of his probation. The Defendant was serving probation concurrently with in-house parole.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, Jerry H Ritter Jr., District Judge, February 12, 2015: The district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation was upheld.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Challenged the district court’s determination that he is not entitled to good time credit on the probation he was serving concurrently with in-house parole (para 2).
• Appellee (State): Supported the district court's decision, implicitly arguing against the Defendant's entitlement to good time credit on his probation, as indicated by the court's affirmation of the district court's decision (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant is entitled to good time credit on the probation he was serving concurrently with in-house parole.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation and denied the Defendant's claim for good time credit on his probation (para 4).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The Court considered the Defendant's single issue on appeal and remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's assertions of error regarding his entitlement to good time credit on probation served concurrently with in-house parole (para 1).
  The Court referenced its recent decision in State v. Ortiz, which directly supports the district court's decision, indicating that the legal framework established in Ortiz was applicable to the Defendant's case (para 2).
  Despite the Defendant's concession that Ortiz is on point and his argument that Ortiz was wrongly decided, the Court declined to reconsider or overturn its decision in Ortiz, thereby upholding the district court's ruling (paras 3-4).