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 case involves the State of New Mexico's appeal against a district court order that revoked and reinstated Defendant Yurida Rodriguez's probation. The appeal centers on the district court's decision to award the Defendant credit for time spent in custody as a sanction for a parole violation, which the State contends violated NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-5(B)(2) (2003). The Defendant had admitted to a probation violation at a hearing, leading to a subsequent request by the prosecutor for a presentment hearing to address an issue regarding probation credit during parole violation sanction (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the district court violated NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-5(B)(2) (2003) by awarding credit toward the completion of the Defendant's probation for time spent in custody as a sanction for a parole violation (para 1).
• Appellee (Defendant - Yurida Rodriguez): Objected to the exclusion of time spent in custody for a parole violation from the period of probation remaining to be served, arguing that such exclusion constituted an increase in sentence and that the court could not order the exclusion after the fact (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court violated NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-5(B)(2) (2003) by awarding credit toward the completion of the Defendant's probation for time spent in custody as a sanction for a parole violation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to award probation credit to the Defendant for time spent in custody as a sanction for a parole violation (para 13).

Reasons

• Per Yohalem, Bogardus, and Ives, JJ.: The State's appeal was dismissed due to a failure to preserve the issue for appeal and an inadequate record on appeal. The State acknowledged its failure to argue the issue of probation credit for time served in custody during the presentment hearing, which was the question raised on appeal. The court found no exception to the preservation requirement applicable, noting that the State had requested the presentment hearing to address this very issue and had been properly served with the defense's argument. Additionally, the State's failure to include necessary documents in the record on appeal left the appellate court with insufficient information to review the district court's decision on its merits. Consequently, the appellate court applied a presumption of correctness to the district court's ruling (paras 7-13).