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 convicted of aggravated battery in 2008 and was sentenced to include mandatory restitution. The district court initially declined to specify the amount of restitution, citing lack of jurisdiction due to the case being on appeal. After the Defendant's conviction was affirmed in May 2011, the Defendant moved to terminate the restitution obligation, relying on a substantial civil settlement entered into with the Victim. The district court terminated the restitution obligation based on this settlement.

Procedural History

• District Court, 2008: Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery and sentenced to include mandatory restitution.
• Court of Appeals, May 2011: Affirmed Defendant's conviction and issued mandate.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that a civil settlement does not affect a criminal restitution obligation.
• Defendant-Appellee: Moved to terminate restitution, relying on a substantial civil settlement with the Victim.

Legal Issues

• Whether a civil settlement can affect a criminal restitution obligation and justify the termination of said obligation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order terminating the Defendant's restitution obligation.

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, Judge (with SUTIN, Judge and VIGIL, Judge concurring): The Court found that NMSA 1978, Section 31-17-1(B) (2005) did not prohibit the district court from concluding that a civil settlement was sufficient to satisfy restitution under the circumstances. The Court emphasized that the public policy behind requiring victim restitution is to make the victim whole to the extent possible, and the district court could conclude that the civil settlement satisfied this policy. The State did not challenge the district court's authority to terminate restitution under these facts but requested a remand for a written explanation of the court's reasoning. The Court declined this request, stating that the district court's written order and the circumstances made any additional written clarification unnecessary.