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 being released from prison, the Defendant failed to report to his probation officer and absconded to Nevada, where he remained for approximately seven months before being apprehended on separate charges. After serving his sentence in Nevada, he was returned to New Mexico, where his probation was revoked, and he was sentenced. The appeal concerns his entitlement to credit for time served on probation (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the State presented no evidence of attempting to serve a warrant on him or that any such attempt would have been futile during the seven-month period he was at large in Nevada. He also argued that he should receive credit for additional time during which he was incarcerated in Nevada (paras 4, 5).
• Appellee (State): Agreed with the analysis regarding the period of time during which the Defendant was incarcerated in Nevada but disagreed with the proposal to remand for further proceedings regarding the Defendant’s status as a fugitive throughout the seven-month period. The State also argued that the Defendant did not raise this issue in his docketing statement and that considering the question of Defendant’s status as a fugitive was unfair due to his no-contest plea and admission of absconding (paras 6, 7, 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant is entitled to credit for time served on probation, considering his status as a fugitive and the State's efforts to serve a warrant (paras 3, 4, 8).

Disposition

• The sentence was vacated, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings (para 10).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judge M. Monica Zamora, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Stephen G. French concurring, found that the State bears the burden of establishing a defendant’s status as a fugitive. The Court noted the State failed to demonstrate it attempted to serve a warrant on the Defendant or that any attempt would have been futile during the seven-month period he was at large in Nevada. The Court also addressed the Defendant's argument for credit for the time he was incarcerated in Nevada but remained unpersuaded based on existing precedents. The State's arguments regarding procedural oversights and the fairness of considering the Defendant's fugitive status were acknowledged but ultimately did not preclude the Court from considering the issue. The Court concluded that due to the lack of evidence regarding the Defendant's status as a fugitive, the appropriate action was to vacate the sentence and remand for further proceedings to determine if the State can prove the Defendant was a fugitive, thereby justifying the denial of credit for time served on probation (paras 3-9).