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

• After hitting a victim with her car, the Defendant was held in custody for 103 days pending trial. She entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, which was suspended in favor of a three-year supervised probation. The district court ruled that the 103-day pre-sentence confinement would only be credited towards any future sentence if the Defendant's probation was violated (para 2).

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Robert M. Schwartz, District Judge. Certiorari Denied, April 24, 2013, No. 34,082. Released for Publication June 18, 2013.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not applying the 103-day pre-sentence confinement credit to the probation period, asserting that the term of probation constitutes the sentence imposed as a result of her conviction, and thus is a “sentence finally imposed” to which her credit must be applied (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the time-served credit to be deducted from a “sentence finally imposed” applies only to a sentence of incarceration. Added that when an incarcerative sentence is suspended or deferred, it is not yet “a sentence finally imposed” for purposes of the statutorily commanded time-served credit (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant is entitled to reduce the length of her probation by the sum of her pre-sentence confinement under the statutory framework governing criminal sentences in New Mexico (para 4).

Disposition

• The district court's decision to not apply the 103-day pre-sentence confinement credit to the Defendant's probation period was affirmed (para 9).

Reasons

• The Court, per J. MILES HANISEE, with JONATHAN B. SUTIN and CYNTHIA A. FRY concurring, held that under NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-5 (2003), the district court had the discretion to impose any duration of probation up to five years, not subject to mandatory diminution by the number of days the Defendant was in pre-sentence confinement. The Court reasoned that the statutory language and legislative intent did not support the Defendant's interpretation that pre-sentence confinement credit should reduce the probation period. It further noted that probation serves a rehabilitative purpose distinct from incarceration, and thus, the pre-sentence confinement credit need not be credited against the probation time ordered by the district court (paras 4-8).