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 appealed the district court's order denying her motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing discrepancies in the calculation of credit for time served and challenging the jurisdiction of the district court to enhance her sentence for one of the charges after she had purportedly served the full sentence for that charge.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County, Daniel A. Bryant, District Judge, October 24, 2018.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Contended that there was an incorrect calculation of credit for days previously served in confinement and on probation, and argued that the district court lost jurisdiction to enhance her sentence for one of the charges as she had already served the full sentence for that charge.
• Appellee: The State filed a notice of non-filing a memorandum in opposition, essentially not contesting the appellant's claims directly in response to the memorandum in opposition filed by the Defendant.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in calculating the credit for days the Defendant served in confinement and on probation.
• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to enhance the Defendant's sentence for a charge she had already served in full.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed, in part, the district court's decision regarding the jurisdiction to enhance the Defendant's sentence.
• The Court of Appeals reversed, in part, the decision for recalculation of the Defendant's credit for days served on probation.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge (M. Monica Zamora, Judge, and Stephen G. French, Judge, concurring):
  The Court found that there was a discrepancy in the calculation of credit for days served on probation, which warranted a reversal for recalculation (para 2). The Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's argument regarding the loss of jurisdiction to enhance her sentence for one of the charges, noting that the probation term was not assigned to run in accordance with either of the counts specifically but rather in total time. This led to the conclusion that the Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of finality as to count one of her sentence, thus affirming the district court's jurisdiction for enhancement of both counts (paras 3-5).