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

• In 2010, the Defendant was indicted on nine counts and subsequently entered into a plea agreement, admitting to three counts related to residential burglary and conspiracy. The agreement included a suspended sentence and probation, with a provision for habitual offender enhancements if probation was violated. The Defendant violated probation, leading to a dispute over whether the enhancements should run concurrently or consecutively.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Mark A. Macaron, District Judge: Sentenced the Defendant according to the plea agreement, later running one of three habitual offender enhancements concurrently after a probation violation.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the plea agreement and the discussion during the plea hearing removed the district court's discretion in sentencing, asserting that enhancements should run consecutively.
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the district court had discretion to run the habitual offender enhancements concurrently, citing the plea agreement's silence on the concurrency or consecutiveness of the enhancements.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had discretion to run one of the Defendant's habitual offender enhancements concurrently with another, despite the State's assertion that the plea agreement and plea hearing discussions mandated consecutive sentencing.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order to run one of the enhancements concurrently.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Roderick T. Kennedy with concurrence from Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil and Judge M. Monica Zamora, held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the Defendant to run one of the habitual offender enhancements concurrently. The decision was based on the plea agreement's silence regarding the concurrency or consecutiveness of the enhancements and the district court's discretion in sentencing matters. The court referenced the case of State v. Triggs and other relevant case law and statutes to support its conclusion that district courts possess broad discretion in sentencing, especially when the plea agreement does not explicitly limit this discretion (paras 13-22).