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 subject to a 2010 judgment and sentence, which included a two-year suspended sentence followed by a five-year probation term. Over the years, the Defendant experienced multiple probation revocations. The most recent revocation occurred with a 2019 Order, which the Defendant appeals. The appeal challenges the imposition of a new five-year probation term set by a 2018 Order, arguing it exceeded the statutory maximum probation period under NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-5 (2001).

Procedural History

• 2010 judgment and sentence: Defendant was ordered to serve two years of a suspended sentence followed by a five-year term of probation.
• July 20, 2018 order: After multiple probation revocations, the district court imposed one year in jail and a new five-year probation term on the Defendant.
• October 10, 2019 order: The district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation in three consolidated cases.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argues that the district court's imposition of a new five-year probation term in the 2018 Order violated NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-5 (2001), as it resulted in an aggregate probation term exceeding five years.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's imposition of a new five-year probation term in the 2018 Order violated NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-5 (2001) by exceeding the statutory maximum probation period.

Disposition

• The appeal challenging the 2019 Order revoking the Defendant's probation and contesting the legality of the 2018 Order's imposition of a new five-year probation term was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per ATTREP, J. (BOGARDUS and DUFFY, JJ., concurring): The Court concluded that the Defendant's appeal from the 2019 Order did not present a viable issue under Section 31-20-5(A) as the order did not sentence the Defendant to probation. The Court also noted that the Defendant failed to timely appeal the 2018 Order, which was the actual subject of the appeal's contention. Furthermore, even if the appeal had been timely, the Court referenced case law indicating that the statute allows for a new probation term following incarceration for probation violations, thus supporting the legality of the 2018 Order's imposition of a new five-year probation term.