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 sentenced to a term of imprisonment and supervised probation after receiving credit for pre-sentence confinement. Before starting probation, he was extradited to Texas, then to Colorado for a probation violation in a separate case, resulting in a four-year imprisonment. Upon completion, he was extradited back to New Mexico. Throughout this period, he was continuously in custody and never reported to probation authorities in New Mexico. A motion to revoke his probation was filed, and a bench warrant issued, based on the belief he had absconded. However, it was later found that he had been continuously in custody or incarcerated by state authorities (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that his probation should not have been tolled during his extradition and incarceration in Texas and Colorado, asserting that his probation term had expired, and the district court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate it (para 7).
• Appellee (State): Conceded that the Defendant is entitled to probation credit but argued that his extradition to Texas tolled his sentence, preventing the start of probation. The State maintained that the district court's nunc pro tunc order did not impose a new probation term but restarted the credit towards the original term (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in tolling the Defendant's probation period during his extradition and subsequent incarceration in Texas and Colorado, thereby extending the probation period beyond its original term (para 7).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals concluded that the Defendant's term of probation had expired, and the district court did not have jurisdiction to reinstate the Defendant’s probation. The nunc pro tunc order reimposing the Defendant’s suspended sentence was reversed, and the matter was remanded to give the Defendant a satisfactory discharge from probation (para 15).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Timothy L. Garcia with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and M. Monica Zamora concurring, reasoned that the Defendant was entitled to credit for the time spent on probation from the date of sentencing. The State's actions, including securing a warrant and proceeding on a motion to have probation revoked, indicated that the probationary term was running. The Court found the State's argument that the extradition acted to toll the probationary term unconvincing, noting that the Defendant was never a fugitive or an absconder from probation. The Court determined that the district court erred in recognizing a tolling of the Defendant's term of probation where the State intentionally transferred him to the custody of another jurisdiction, and he was neither a fugitive nor an absconder from probation at any time (paras 7-14).