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

• In October 2008, the Defendant pleaded no contest to thirteen misdemeanor and felony counts after consolidating three criminal cases and was sentenced to eighteen years less seven days of incarceration, with all but four years suspended and probation to follow. In 2011, after violating probation, the Defendant's probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to an additional five years of imprisonment. A habeas corpus petition filed by the Defendant led to a 2013 district court order granting him credit for six years and sixty-three days, although an amended judgment and sentence reflecting this was never issued. In 2016, the Defendant violated his probation by failing to report for probation and absconding to Colorado. He was arrested in Colorado Springs in March 2017 on a domestic charge and served with a bench warrant for this case in June 2017. The Defendant pleaded no contest to absconding among other probation violations (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• April 2013: District Court granted Defendant's habeas corpus petition, finding him entitled to credit for six years and sixty-three days.
• July 2013: New Mexico Supreme Court remanded the case for entry of an amended judgment and sentence.
• November 15, 2013: District Court entered an amended judgment and sentence with a new calculation agreed upon by the State and Defendant, crediting less time than the habeas order by approximately one year and nine months (paras 3-4).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the district court’s finding that he was a fugitive and that the district court denied him approximately one year and nine months of credit. Additionally, raised five undeveloped arguments pursuant to State v. Franklin and State v. Boyer (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that any attempt to serve the warrant on Defendant would have been futile because Defendant had absconded to Colorado. Presented evidence of efforts to locate Defendant before the warrant issued and argued that this, coupled with Defendant’s admission to absconding, established due diligence in attempting to serve the warrant (paras 9-10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State met its burden to establish that Defendant was a fugitive.
• Whether the district court erred in calculating pre- and post-sentence confinement credit.
• Whether Defendant’s undeveloped arguments, including claims of illegal warrants, illegal supervision, denial of probation transfer, ineffective assistance of counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct, merit review (paras 8, 13, 16).

Disposition

• The Court reversed the district court’s finding that Defendant was a fugitive and remanded for a hearing to determine proper probation credit.
• The Court affirmed the district court's calculation of pre- and post-sentence confinement credit.
• The Court declined to review Defendant’s undeveloped arguments (paras 12, 15, 16).

Reasons

• DUFFY, Judge (with JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge and BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge concurring): Found that the State did not meet its burden to prove Defendant was a fugitive, as it failed to show due diligence in serving the warrant or that Defendant's location was unknown, especially given the lack of evidence that the warrant was entered into the NCIC database. The Court also found no error in the district court's calculation of pre- and post-sentence confinement credit, noting that the Defendant did not develop an argument to show that the district court actually imposed additional time or supported this argument with citation to authority. The Court declined to review Defendant’s undeveloped arguments due to insufficient development and lack of clarity (paras 8-17).