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 convicted for possession of a controlled substance. The conviction stemmed from the Defendant's admission of drug use and the discovery of a syringe on his person at the time of arrest.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Fernando R. Macias, District Judge, November 21, 2016: Conviction for possession of a controlled substance affirmed, but remand for correction of an illegal concurrent sentence.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the admission of drug use and the syringe were inadmissible under Rules 11-404 and 11-403 NMRA, contended that the concurrent sentence was illegal, and sought presentence confinement credit.
• Appellee: Indicated no opposition to the Court's second calendar notice, which proposed reversing and remanding the sentencing issue regarding the illegal concurrent sentence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's admission of drug use and the possession of a syringe were admissible under Rules 11-404 and 11-403 NMRA.
• Whether the concurrent sentence imposed was illegal.
• Whether the Defendant was entitled to presentence confinement credit.

Disposition

• Affirmed the conviction for possession of a controlled substance.
• Reversed and remanded for correction of the illegal concurrent sentence.
• Denied the motion to amend regarding presentence confinement credit but noted the district court is not precluded from considering the Defendant's arguments on this issue.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, provided the following reasons:
  The Defendant's admission of drug use and the syringe found on his person were deemed admissible, as they were not considered evidence of the Defendant's character or prior bad acts under Rules 11-404 and 11-403 NMRA (paras 2-4).
  The Court proposed to grant the Defendant's motion to amend regarding the illegal concurrent sentence, agreeing that remand was the proper remedy to address this issue (para 7).
  Regarding presentence confinement credit, the Court was not persuaded that the Defendant was entitled to such credit and suggested that this issue could be raised in a habeas proceeding. However, the Court noted that the district court is not precluded from considering the Defendant's arguments on this issue if deemed appropriate (para 8).