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 arrested for shoplifting in 2010 and signed her sister's name on the citation. This forgery was discovered in 2014, leading to a warrant for the Defendant's arrest. After moving to New York, the Defendant was extradited back to New Mexico by the San Juan County Sheriff’s Department in 2018. She pled guilty to one count of forgery and was sentenced to unsupervised probation for eighteen months, along with a directive to pay restitution for the extradition costs (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the restitution order for extradition costs was not authorized by statute, as the Department is not a "victim" under the victim restitution statute. Contended there was no direct causal relationship between her criminal activities and the extradition costs. Also claimed the State failed to provide an adequate evidentiary basis for the restitution amount (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Countered that restitution for extradition costs is authorized under the victim restitution statute, or alternatively, as a condition of probation or a cost of conviction. Asserted that the Defendant waived any challenge to the restitution amount by not contesting it below (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the order requiring the Defendant to pay restitution for extradition costs was authorized by law (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court reversed the portion of the Defendant's sentence requiring her to pay restitution for the Department's extradition costs (para 22).

Reasons

• The Court, with an opinion by Judge B. Zamora and concurrence by Judges Linda M. Vanzi and Jacqueline R. Medina, found that the restitution order was not authorized by law. The Court determined that the Department is not a "victim" under the victim restitution statute because there was no direct, causal relationship between the Defendant's criminal activities and the extradition costs. The Court also concluded that the restitution order could not be justified as a condition of probation or as a cost of conviction, as it was not reasonably related to the Defendant's rehabilitation or directly related to the trial of the case itself. The Court did not address the Defendant's argument regarding the evidentiary basis for the restitution amount, as the order was found unauthorized by statute (paras 4-21).