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

• On September 8, 2017, the Defendant led law enforcement on a vehicle chase from Logan to Tucumcari, New Mexico. After stopping, the Defendant fled on foot but was eventually found in a shed. During a pat-down, officers discovered suspected methamphetamine in the Defendant's sock. The Defendant was on probation for two separate cases at the time of this incident (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in its presentence confinement credit calculation and that his convictions for aggravated fleeing of a law enforcement officer and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer violate his protection against double jeopardy (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant is not entitled to credit against the sentence in this case for confinement after arrest on the charges in this case that coincided with the unexpired term of the sentence(s) in his previous case(s) (para 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in its presentence confinement credit calculation (para 9).
• Whether the Defendant’s convictions for aggravated fleeing of a law enforcement officer and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer violate his protection against double jeopardy (para 17).

Disposition

• The Court reversed the district court’s ruling on presentence confinement credit and the Defendant’s conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to enter an amended judgment and sentence granting the Defendant an additional 293 days of presentence confinement credit, and to vacate the conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer (para 20).

Reasons

• The Court found that the Defendant’s presentence confinement in relation to probation violations was indeed related to the charges in the instant case, thus entitling him to presentence confinement credit. The Court applied a three-factor test to determine the relationship between the Defendant’s confinement and the charges, concluding that the Defendant satisfies the criteria for presentence confinement credit. It was determined that the Defendant is entitled to presentence confinement credit once against the aggregate of his sentences in PV-2 and the instant case (paras 9-16). Regarding the double jeopardy claim, the Court agreed with the parties that the Defendant’s convictions for aggravated fleeing of a law enforcement officer and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer, based on a single course of conduct, violated his protection against double jeopardy. Consequently, the conviction for the lesser offense of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer was vacated (paras 17-19).