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 on probation and parole, which were running concurrently. After violating the conditions of his parole, the parole board revoked his parole, leading to his incarceration. The Defendant appealed the amount of presentence confinement credit determined by the district court following the revocation of his probation, asserting a due process violation related to the concurrent running of his probation and parole prior to the revocation (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that his right to due process was violated by the application of NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-5 (2003), contending that he had a reasonable expectation that his probation and parole would continue to run concurrently even after the revocation of his parole (para 3).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's right to due process was violated by the application of NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-5 (2003), in the calculation of presentence confinement credit following the revocation of his probation (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals denied the Defendant's motion to amend his docketing statement and affirmed the order revoking the Defendant's probation, including its calculation of presentence confinement credit (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, Judge Kristina Bogardus, and Judge Shammara H. Henderson, unanimously found that the Defendant was not entitled to a reasonable expectation that his probation and parole would continue to run concurrently following the revocation of his parole. The Court referenced the statutory provision NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-5 (2003), which clearly states that time served in custody as a result of parole revocation is not credited towards probation. The Court relied on precedent that affirmed the legislative intent for this principle to apply in all cases, thereby concluding that the Defendant's due process rights were not violated. Additionally, the Court noted that the Defendant failed to provide any new facts or legal arguments beyond his due process claim to challenge the district court's calculation of presentence confinement credit, leading to the affirmation of the district court's order (paras 3-6).