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 and pled guilty to his third offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI) and for driving on a revoked or suspended license. He was sentenced to a total of 728 days, with most of the sentence suspended except for 37 days. The magistrate court awarded him 5 days’ credit for presentence confinement but did not credit the 39 days he spent on electronic monitoring prior to his plea.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, Stephen D. Pfeffer, District Judge: The Defendant was sentenced for his third DWI and for driving on a revoked or suspended license, with a partial suspension of the sentence except for 37 days, and was awarded 5 days’ credit for presentence confinement but not for the 39 days on electronic monitoring.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the refusal to grant presentence confinement credit for the 39 days spent on electronic monitoring was a denial of equal protection, as it forced him to serve a longer effective sentence than if he had been able to post bail and avoid electronic monitoring.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the magistrate court's refusal to grant presentence confinement credit for the 39 days the Defendant spent on electronic monitoring prior to his guilty plea constitutes a denial of equal protection.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s sentence, denying the appeal for presentence confinement credit for the days spent on electronic monitoring.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the Defendant failed to establish a factual basis for his equal protection argument. It was noted that presentence confinement credit is discretionary under statutory law. The Defendant's appeal centered on the claim that his sentence was unconstitutional due to the denial of presentence confinement credit for the time spent on electronic monitoring, arguing this resulted in serving more than double the intended sentence. However, the district court, upon review, found no evidence presented that the Defendant was unable to post bond or that he was actually on electronic monitoring for the claimed 39 days. The Court emphasized that arguments of counsel are not evidence and that the Defendant failed to establish a sufficient factual basis for his equal protection claim. Consequently, the Court affirmed the sentence, highlighting the lack of factual evidence to support the Defendant's claim.