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-Appellant, Russell Rankin, was incarcerated prior to sentencing in both a prior case and the current one. He appeals his sentence, specifically challenging the amount of presentence confinement credit awarded by the district court. The contention revolves around two periods of incarceration: a 428-day period related to both the prior and current cases, and a 502-day period during which Rankin was serving a sentence for the prior case while awaiting sentencing for the current case.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Supported the Court of Appeals' proposed summary disposition, agreeing that the district court erred in the calculation of presentence confinement credit awarded to Rankin.
• Appellant (Russell Rankin): Argued that the district court erred in the amount of presentence confinement credit awarded, specifically contending that he was entitled to more credit than was granted.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in the amount of presentence confinement credit awarded to Rankin.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded for resentencing without the 502-day credit.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Michael D. Bustamante with concurrence from Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Cynthia A. Fry, found that the district court erred in its calculation of presentence confinement credit for Rankin. Initially, the Court proposed to agree with Rankin that there was an error but concluded that the district court actually awarded more credit than Rankin was entitled to, not less. Specifically, the Court identified that while the district court properly refused to award credit for the 428-day period of incarceration related to both the prior and current cases, it erroneously awarded credit for the 502-day period during which Rankin was serving a sentence for the prior case and awaiting sentencing for the current case. The absence of opposition from Rankin, following the Court's notice of proposed summary disposition, was interpreted as acceptance of the proposed reversal and remand for resentencing without the 502-day credit (paras 1-3).