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 convicted of aggravated assault upon a peace officer with a deadly weapon and possession of a firearm by a felon. After being sentenced to a total prison term of four years followed by a two-year parole term to run consecutively with a sentence from a probation proceeding, the Defendant filed a motion to reconsider for the sentences to run concurrently. The district court initially granted this motion without a State response or hearing, but after the State's objection and request for reconsideration, reinstated the original consecutive sentence.

Procedural History

• District Court of San Juan County, February 7, 2011: Convicted the Defendant and sentenced him to a total prison term of four years followed by a two-year parole term, to run consecutively with the sentence imposed in the probation proceeding.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the district court violated his constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy by reinstating the original consecutive sentence after initially granting his motion to run his sentence concurrently with the sentence imposed in his probation proceeding.
• State: Contended that it had not had an opportunity to respond to the Defendant's motion to reconsider and that victims are entitled to notice of any and all hearings. Argued for the reinstatement of the original consecutive sentence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's action of reinstating the original consecutive sentence after initially granting the Defendant's motion for concurrent sentencing violated the Defendant's constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s consecutive sentence.

Reasons

• Per WECHSLER, J. (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, concurring), the Court held that the Defendant had no reasonable expectation of finality in the concurrent sentence imposed by the April 6, 2011 order because it was granted without allowing the State an opportunity to respond and without a hearing. The State had the right to request reconsideration under both NMSA 1978, Section 39-1-1, and Rule 5-801(A) NMRA, which allows for the correction of a sentence imposed in an illegal manner. The Court found that the district court's initial decision to grant the Defendant's motion for concurrent sentencing was made in an illegal manner, as it violated procedural rules by not allowing the State to respond and by not holding a hearing. Consequently, the Defendant could not have had a reasonable expectation of finality in the sentence, and the subsequent reinstatement of the consecutive sentence did not violate the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.