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 of aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm, a third-degree felony. Following the conviction, the district court deferred the imposition of the sentence and placed the Defendant on supervised probation for three years, with a condition allowing him to possess a firearm.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the district court's order allowing the Defendant to possess a firearm was contrary to legislative enactments, specifically federal law, and thus constituted an illegal sentence over which the district court lacked jurisdiction.
• Appellee (Defendant): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by including a probation condition that allowed the Defendant to possess a firearm, contrary to federal law.

Disposition

• The provision of the district court’s order allowing the Defendant to possess firearms was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to either strike that provision or enter an amended order consistent with the appellate court's opinion.

Reasons

• Per Ives, J. (Hanisee, C.J., and Medina, J., concurring): The appellate court agreed with the State's contention, finding that the district court's order was contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-6, which requires probation conditions to ensure the defendant will observe U.S. laws. Federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), prohibits individuals convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year from possessing firearms. The court determined that the Defendant's civil rights, including the right to possess firearms, had not been restored under New Mexico law, as his rights to vote, hold public office, and serve on a jury were still suspended pending the successful completion of his deferred sentence. The appellate court found the district court's decision to allow the Defendant to possess a firearm was an abuse of discretion, as it effectively authorized a violation of federal law (paras 1, 3-6).