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, Gary Maylon Sanders, entered a no contest plea to multiple offenses and admitted to having a prior felony conviction. He was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. Following a denied amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and a denied petition for writ of certiorari by the New Mexico Supreme Court, the Defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, which was deemed untimely by the district court due to jurisdictional constraints under Rule 5-801(B) NMRA.

Procedural History

• June 19, 2006: Defendant pled no contest to multiple offenses and was sentenced on October 6, 2006.
• June 23, 2009: Defendant filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.
• September 15, 2011: District court denied the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.
• October 25, 2011: New Mexico Supreme Court denied Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari.
• November 18, 2011: Defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which was denied by the district court for being untimely.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his motion to reconsider sentence was timely filed within ninety days of the Supreme Court’s order denying his petition for writ of certiorari, interpreting this as “any order” within the meaning of Rule 5-801(B).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the motion was untimely because the Supreme Court’s order did not constitute an “order . . . denying review of, or having the effect of upholding, a judgment of conviction” as per Rule 5-801(B).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider the Defendant's motion for reconsideration of sentence under Rule 5-801(B) NMRA.
• Whether the Supreme Court’s order denying the Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari triggered the ninety-day period under Rule 5-801(B) for filing a motion to reconsider sentence.

Disposition

• The district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Linda M. Vanzi, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Jonathan B. Sutin, J., concurring): The court held that the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Defendant's motion for reconsideration because it was not filed within the time frame specified by Rule 5-801(B) NMRA. The court clarified that the ninety-day period for filing a motion to reconsider sentence is triggered by specific events directly related to the defendant's sentence and direct appeal, not by the denial of a petition for writ of certiorari in a habeas corpus proceeding. The court's interpretation of Rule 5-801(B) emphasized that the phrase “any order” must be read in conjunction with the language specifying it must be an order denying review of, or upholding, a judgment of conviction, which did not apply in this case.