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 incarcerated pre-sentence in the custody of the Department of Corrections. He appeals to have his judgment and sentence amended to explicitly authorize the Department to award him "good time" credit for this period.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argues that without explicit acknowledgment by the district court, the Department of Corrections may not grant him good-time credit for his pre-sentence confinement time (para 2).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court needs to explicitly authorize the Department of Corrections to award "good time" credit for the Defendant's pre-sentence incarceration time.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence entered by the district court, deciding not to amend the judgment and sentence to include language authorizing the Department of Corrections to award "good time" credit (para 6).

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Michael E. Vigil, J., concurring): The Court found that the administration of good time credits is an independent responsibility of the Department of Corrections and not contingent upon explicit authorization from the district court. The Defendant's concern that the Department might not award him good time credits without such authorization was not supported by any evidence suggesting the Department would not follow its established policies for administering these credits. The Court also noted that the Defendant did not claim that district court authorization was necessary for the Department to award the credits, merely that he sought an affirming statement from the court. The Court concluded that the absence of explicit language in the judgment and sentence regarding the awarding of good time credits did not prejudice the Defendant, as the Department already possesses the authority to grant such credits in accordance with its policies (paras 1-5).