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 for escape or attempt to escape from jail and received a sentence enhanced due to being an habitual offender. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a motion to amend his sentence, specifically seeking an increase in his presentence confinement credit (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that his motion to amend the sentence, seeking an increase in presentence confinement credit, should be considered under Rule 5-801 NMRA, and not as a habeas corpus petition under Rule 5-802 NMRA (paras 1-2).
• Appellee (State): The specific arguments of the Appellee are not detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the State opposed the Defendant's motion or the appeal based on the context of the decision (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's appeal from a non-final order regarding a motion to amend his sentence for increased presentence confinement credit is premature (para 1).
• Whether the Defendant's motion for increased presentence confinement credit should be treated as a habeas corpus petition under Rule 5-802 NMRA or under Rule 5-801 NMRA as initially filed (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals proposed to dismiss the Defendant's appeal for lack of a final, appealable order and remand to the district court for further proceedings (para 1).
• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and remanded to the district court for further proceedings, allowing the Defendant to pursue the appeal and any matters related to his motion after the district court enters a final, written order (para 3).

Reasons

• Per MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring):
  The Court observed that the Defendant's timely motion under Rule 5-801 NMRA, together with the district court's failure to enter a written ruling, rendered the underlying proceedings non-final, making the instant appeal premature (para 1).
  The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's argument that his motion should be considered a habeas corpus petition under Rule 5-802 NMRA, maintaining that it was properly filed under Rule 5-801 NMRA for the purpose of seeking to reduce his sentence (para 2).
  The Court decided against dismissing the appeal without prejudice, citing precedent and emphasizing the need for a final, written order from the district court on the Defendant's motion before any appeal can proceed (para 3).