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, after pleading no contest to five felony counts of third-degree forgery and guilty to seven fourth-degree felonies and two misdemeanors in separate cases, was sentenced to imprisonment followed by parole and supervised probation. While serving his sentence for one case, he was also serving probation for the other. After being reincarcerated due to probation violations, the Defendant sought to have his sentence recalculated, arguing that the time served on probation while incarcerated should be eligible for earned meritorious deductions under the Earned Meritorious Deductions Act (EMDA).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, Jerry H. Ritter, Jr., District Judge: The district court determined that the EMDA does not apply to a term of probation, even when the probation is served during a period of incarceration on another sentence, and imposed parole requirements as per New Mexico law.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in determining that the EMDA does not apply to a term of probation served during incarceration on another sentence and challenged the imposition of multiple periods of parole on consecutive counts (paras 1, 6).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the EMDA does not apply to probationary sentences and that New Mexico law requires the Defendant to serve multiple periods of parole for consecutive sentences (paras 8, 12-14).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Earned Meritorious Deductions Act applies to a term of probation served during a period of incarceration on another sentence.
• Whether New Mexico law requires an individual to serve multiple periods of parole on consecutive counts.

Disposition

• The district court's rulings were affirmed, determining that the EMDA does not apply to probationary sentences and that the Defendant must serve each period of parole as separately sentenced.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring):
  The court found that the EMDA's provisions for earned meritorious deductions apply only to periods of incarceration or parole, not to probationary sentences, based on the statutory interpretation of the EMDA and the distinction between parole and probation as defined by New Mexico law (paras 7-10).
  The court also concluded that, according to New Mexico law and precedent, in cases of consecutive sentencing, each offense's parole period commences immediately after the imprisonment for that offense, necessitating the Defendant to serve each period of parole to which he was sentenced (paras 13-14).