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 an ex parte order of unsatisfactory discharge from probation.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Mike Murphy, District Court Judge, August 5, 2011: The district court issued an ex parte order of unsatisfactory discharge from probation against the Defendant.

Parties' Submissions

• State: Agreed with the Defendant on the proposed disposition to reverse the district court's order but suggested a modification for the remand to be for dismissal of the charge instead of issuance of an order of satisfactory discharge.
• Defendant: Concurred with the State's proposal to reverse the district court's decision and supported the modification for the remand to be for dismissal of the charge.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant is entitled to a dismissal of the charges against him due to the expiration of the period of deferment without entry of an order imposing sentence.

Disposition

• The case is reversed and remanded for entry of an order of dismissal of the charges.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring): The court agreed with the joint motion filed by the State and the Defendant, concluding that the appropriate remedy was dismissal of the charge pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-9 (1963). This decision was based on the law regarding deferred sentences and their expiration, which stipulates that upon the expiration of the deferment period without an order imposing sentence, the defendant is relieved of any obligations imposed by the court order, has satisfied his criminal liability for the crime, and is entitled to a dismissal of the criminal charges.