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, Moda James Bentley, was sentenced to three years of probation after pleading guilty to felonies in two different cases: possession of a firearm or destructive device by a felon and receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle or motor vehicle. The State sought to revoke the Defendant's probation, alleging he violated it by possessing a switchblade knife and using it to stab another individual. An evidentiary hearing was held, and the Defendant's probation was revoked. He was then sentenced as a habitual offender to serve eleven years of incarceration (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court denied his due process rights by holding the evidentiary hearing via audio-visual connection rather than in-person and erred in enhancing his sentences as it no longer had jurisdiction (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court denied the Defendant's due process rights by holding the evidentiary hearing related to his probation revocation via audio-visual connection, rather than in-person.
• Whether the district court erred in enhancing the Defendant’s sentences because it no longer had jurisdiction.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's amended judgment and sentence, final order on probation violation, commitment to the department of corrections, and transport order (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Chief Judge Hanisee, with Judges Medina and Baca concurring, held that the district court retained jurisdiction to enhance the Defendant's sentence. The court found that the Defendant's plea agreement and the original global judgment and sentence established that his periods of probation were two consecutive eighteen-month terms, thus refuting the Defendant's argument that his probation should have concluded after his first eighteen-month term. The court also concluded that there was no authority to support the application of presentence confinement credits to the term of probation ordered in the Defendant's sentence. Regarding the use of audio-visual connection for the evidentiary hearing, the court found no error in the district court's compliance with the Supreme Court Order, which allowed for such proceedings under specific conditions. The court declined to review arguments challenging the constitutionality or validity of New Mexico Supreme Court orders, reminding that such arguments should be made directly to the Supreme Court (paras 4-13).