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, Christopher Calloway, was convicted following a no contest plea to charges of child abuse and negligent use of a deadly weapon. Prior to his sentencing, he was released to the custody of his parents under specific conditions, including restrictions on his movement, mandatory employment, and a curfew. The Defendant sought presentence confinement credit for the 655 days he spent out of custody under these conditions, arguing that the restrictions were so severe that they amounted to official confinement, making him eligible for such credit.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the conditions of his pre-sentencing release were so restrictive that they amounted to official confinement, subjecting him to the charge of escape if violated, and therefore, he should be awarded presentence confinement credit for the 655 days spent under these conditions (paras 2, 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The summary does not provide specific arguments from the Plaintiff-Appellee. However, it can be inferred that the Plaintiff-Appellee opposed the Defendant-Appellant's motion for presentence confinement credit.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant-Appellant is entitled to presentence confinement credit for the time spent out of custody under restrictive conditions imposed by the court.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the Defendant-Appellant's motion for presentence confinement credit (para 7).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Jonathan B. Sutin and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, the Court reasoned that the Defendant-Appellant's release conditions did not qualify as official confinement under NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-12, as he was not subject to a community custody release program or any judicially approved program with defined procedures and conditions that would make him liable to a charge of escape for non-compliance. The Court found that the Defendant-Appellant's release to his parents' custody did not meet the criteria established in previous case law for awarding presentence confinement credit for time spent out of custody. The Court declined to expand the case law to include the Defendant-Appellant's circumstances, emphasizing the lack of evidence or authority supporting the claim that he was subject to an escape charge for violating his release conditions (paras 2-6).