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 sentenced to nine years for two counts of armed robbery, each with a firearm enhancement. The district court ordered these sentences to be served consecutively. The Defendant later appealed the district court's order revoking his probation, denying his motion to clarify the probationary period, and ordering him to serve 301 days in the Metropolitan Detention Center, followed by a new five-year probationary period. The Defendant argued that this sentence exceeded his total sentence exposure from the underlying judgment and sentence.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant contended that the original judgment and sentence included too much time on his suspended sentence because it did not reflect that the armed robbery sentences with firearm enhancements should have been run fully or partially concurrently, rather than consecutively, as stated by the district court.
• Appellee: The State argued against the Defendant's contention, maintaining the legality and appropriateness of the sentence as ordered by the district court.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in its sentencing by not running the two enhanced armed robbery sentences at least partially, if not wholly, concurrently.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the district court's order was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, concurring):
  The court found that the Defendant's premise regarding the necessity for concurrent sentences under Section 31-18-16(A) was not compelling. It was determined that the district court had the discretion to suspend all or part of the execution of a sentence for noncapital, second-degree felonies, including the ability to order the sentences to be served consecutively with the mandatory firearm enhancements. The court referenced the authority given to district courts under NMSA 1978, § 31-20-3(B) (1985) and the interpretation of the firearm enhancement statute in State v. Russell, which allowed for the suspension or deferral of the basic sentence in firearm enhancement cases. The appellate court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion and that the sentence was consistent with statutory restrictions and the court's discretion.