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 charged with burglary of a vehicle and possession of drug paraphernalia, to which he entered a no contest plea. Subsequently, he was placed on probation with specific conditions, including not possessing firearms or using illegal substances. The State filed a petition to revoke his probation, alleging violations. After a series of events, including leaving a court-ordered treatment program and failing to report to his probation officer, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. The Defendant did not check in with the probation office after leaving the treatment program, leading to his arrest for probation violation years later.

Procedural History

• District Court of Lincoln County, Karen Parsons, District Judge: The Defendant was placed on probation, which was later revoked due to his failure to comply with the conditions, specifically for being an absconder from June 27, 2006, to December 23, 2008.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State presented insufficient evidence to support the district court’s finding that he was a fugitive, contending the State did not demonstrate reasonable diligence in serving a bench warrant on him.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that sufficient evidence was presented to determine that the Defendant had absconded, as he had not fulfilled his probation requirements, and therefore had not earned probation credit for the time from June 27, 2006, to December 23, 2008.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the district court’s finding that the Defendant was a fugitive due to being an absconder from June 27, 2006, to December 23, 2008.
• Whether the State demonstrated reasonable diligence in serving a bench warrant on the Defendant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case to vacate the June 8, 2009, judgment, and to issue the Defendant a certificate of satisfactory completion of probation.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Michael D. Bustamante, with Judges Celia Foy Castillo and Robert E. Robles concurring, found that the State failed to meet its burden of showing reasonable diligence in serving a bench warrant on the Defendant. The court highlighted that the State did not provide evidence that the second bench warrant was entered into the NCIC database, which is considered an important aspect of demonstrating the State's due diligence. Furthermore, the court noted that the State made no efforts to locate the Defendant or serve him with the warrant other than occasional inquiries to the Defendant's mother. The court concluded that the State's actions were insufficient to support a finding that the Defendant was a fugitive, as required by Section 31-21-15(C) of the NMSA 1978. The court emphasized that the State's burden includes showing that it issued a warrant for the probationer’s arrest, entered it into the NCIC database, and either unsuccessfully attempted to serve the warrant on the defendant or that any attempt to serve the defendant would have been futile. The court determined that the State did not sustain this burden, leading to the reversal of the district court's decision.