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 of possession of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute. The appeal focuses on the denial of presentence confinement credit for the time the Defendant was in custody from the date of arrest to the date of sentencing.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Judith Nakamura, District Judge, December 30, 2014: Convicted of possession of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by denying presentence confinement credit for the entire time in custody from the date of arrest to the date of sentencing. Sought to apply equitable principles from the speedy trial context and the State’s responsibility to locate probationers to argue for additional presentence confinement credit.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by denying the Defendant presentence confinement credit for the entire time he was in custody from the date of arrest to the date of sentencing.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence, denying the Defendant additional presentence confinement credit beyond the 85 days already granted.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, J., J. MILES HANISEE, J., concurring):
  The Court found that the Defendant was not entitled to more presentence confinement credit than the 85 days already granted. The Court relied on NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-12, and State v. Facteau, which clarified that confinement must be triggered by or sufficiently related to the current charges to warrant additional credit. The Defendant's argument, seeking to apply equitable principles from the speedy trial context and the State’s responsibility to locate probationers, was deemed inapplicable to the situation. Despite the Defendant's response to the Court's notice of proposed summary disposition, the Court remained unpersuaded that the Defendant was entitled to additional presentence confinement credit (paras 1-4).