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, Cody Ruiz, was convicted of two counts of homicide by vehicle under NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-101 (2004), following a plea agreement (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Lea County, Mark Sanchez, District Judge, May 19, 2015: Convicted of two counts of homicide by vehicle and sentenced under a plea agreement.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Cody Ruiz): Argued that the district court erred in designating the two counts of homicide by vehicle as "serious violent offenses" under the Earned Meritorious Deductions Act (EMDA), as it failed to make the necessary findings to support such a designation (para 1).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Conceded that findings are required for the designation of offenses as "serious violent offenses" under the EMDA and acknowledged the district court's failure to make such findings. The State argued for a remand to the district court for reconsideration of the issue rather than outright reversal (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in designating the two counts of homicide by vehicle as "serious violent offenses" under the EMDA without making the necessary findings to support such a designation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's finding that the two counts of homicide by vehicle were "serious violent offenses" and remanded the case to the district court to reconsider this issue and enter findings, if necessary (para 4).

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Linda M. Vanzi, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals was initially persuaded by the Defendant's argument, proposing to reverse the district court's designation of the offenses as "serious violent offenses" under the EMDA. The State's concession that the district court failed to make the required findings for such a designation led the Court to agree that a remand for reconsideration and necessary findings was appropriate. The Court concluded that while there could be a factual basis for the designation, the absence of explicit findings by the district court necessitated reversal and remand for proceedings consistent with their opinion (paras 2-4).