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 committed to the New Mexico Department of Corrections following the revocation of his probation by the district court. The appeal concerns the calculation of presentence confinement credit, specifically whether the Defendant was credited for all periods of confinement prior to sentencing.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Karen L. Townsend, District Judge: The district court revoked the Defendant's probation and committed him to the New Mexico Department of Corrections.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that he was not awarded the full amount of presentence confinement credit to which he was entitled, specifically for the period from June 8, 2015, to September 4, 2015.
• Appellee: Did not object to the proposed reversal and remand for recalculating presentence confinement credit.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was awarded the correct amount of presentence confinement credit.
• Whether the Defendant’s first two issues, concerning his underlying conviction, are appropriate for consideration in this revocation proceeding.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part for recalculation of the amount of presentence confinement credit due to the Defendant or for clarification of the district court's calculations.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Henry M. Bohnhoff, J., and Jennifer L. Attrep, J., concurring):
  The Court issued a memorandum opinion addressing the Defendant's appeal from the district court's order revoking his probation and committing him to the New Mexico Department of Corrections. Initially, the Court proposed to affirm the district court's decision on all issues raised by the Defendant. However, upon reviewing a memorandum in opposition and a motion to amend the docketing statement filed by the Defendant, the Court issued a second notice. This notice proposed to affirm the original issues on different grounds, stating that the first two issues raised by the Defendant were not appropriate for this revocation proceeding and should be addressed in a habeas corpus petition. The Court also granted the motion to amend to the extent that it asserted the Defendant was not awarded the amount of presentence confinement credit to which he was entitled, proposing to reverse in part and remand for recalculation or clarification of the sentence (paras 1-3).
  Both parties agreed with the proposed reversal and remand for clarification or recalculation of the Defendant's sentence, specifically regarding the presentence confinement credit. The Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part based on the lack of factual or legal argument from either party opposing the proposed analysis in the second notice. The Court highlighted the need for clarity on remand regarding the calculation of presentence confinement credit, noting discrepancies in the amended order revoking probation's recitation of the periods for which the Defendant was given credit. The Court was unable to discern the basis for the amended order’s calculation of the time remaining to be served, leading to the decision to reverse and remand for recalculation or clarification of the amount of presentence confinement credit due to the Defendant (paras 4-5).