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 on probation and failed to report to his probation officer and to appear for court on two different days. A warrant for the Defendant's arrest was issued and entered into the NCIC database. The Defendant admitted to not appearing for court dates, being unlocatable, and not reporting to his probation officer.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to prove he was a fugitive, contending that merely failing to report to a probation officer and not appearing in court on two occasions, without evidence of the State's attempts to locate him, was insufficient to establish fugitive status.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the Defendant was a fugitive, thereby justifying the denial of credit for time served on probation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Defendant credit for time served on probation.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, and J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, concurring): The Court found the Defendant's arguments unpersuasive, noting that the issuance of a warrant and its entry into the NCIC database, combined with the Defendant's admissions, were sufficient to support a finding of fugitive status. The Court relied on precedent to conclude that the evidence presented raised a reasonable inference that the warrant could not be served with reasonable diligence, thus supporting the district court's implicit finding that the Defendant was a fugitive and could be denied credit for time served on probation.