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, acting as a self-represented litigant, appealed the district court's decision which denied his motion to amend his judgment and sentence. The appeal concerns the monetary deductions from the Defendant's compensation for victim restitution, specifically challenging the application of a mandatory crime victims reparation fee and its alleged conflict with another statute regarding victim restitution amounts (para 1-2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the mandatory crime victims reparation fee established by NMSA 1978, Section 31-12-13, which is $75, conflicts with Section 33-8-8 and should be retroactively applied to his judgment and sentence to limit the amount of victim restitution. Also claimed that the district court’s order and the appellate court's proposed affirmance unconstitutionally denied him access to the courts (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the mandatory crime victims reparation fee of $75 established by NMSA 1978, Section 31-12-13, conflicts with Section 33-8-8 and should be retroactively applied to limit the amount of victim restitution in the Defendant's judgment and sentence.
• Whether the district court’s order and the appellate court's proposed affirmance unconstitutionally denied the Defendant access to the courts (paras 2-3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying the Defendant’s motion to amend his judgment and sentence (para 5).

Reasons

• KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge (ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge and SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge concurring):
  The Court found the Defendant's argument, that the mandatory crime victims reparation fee should limit the amount of victim restitution, to be based on a misunderstanding of the law. The Court clarified that the statute establishing the reparation fee does not place a limit on the amount of victim restitution a court may impose. The Court also rejected the Defendant's claim that the district court’s order and the appellate court's proposed affirmance unconstitutionally denied him access to the courts, noting that the Defendant's motion for reconsideration of his sentence was not the proper vehicle for the legal issues he raised. The Court emphasized that the Defendant's inability to obtain relief through his motion or a writ of habeas corpus does not constitute a denial of access to the judiciary, provided his claims are appropriately pled. The Court concluded that the Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not present any new facts, laws, or arguments that would persuade the Court to alter its proposed disposition (paras 2-5).