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 involved in three criminal actions. Initially, he pleaded guilty to several felonies and received a suspended sentence (Sentence A). Subsequently, he was arrested for auto theft-related crimes, pleaded guilty, and received another suspended sentence to be served consecutively to Sentence A (Sentence B). Following an arrest for shoplifting, probation for both sentences was revoked. The court initially ordered Sentence A to run concurrently with Sentence B but later amended this to reflect that Sentence A does not run concurrently with Sentence B (paras 3-7).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County, July 19, 2006: Defendant pleaded guilty to multiple felonies and received a suspended sentence (Sentence A).
• District Court of Doña Ana County, Date N/A (after July 19, 2006): Defendant pleaded guilty to auto theft-related crimes and received a suspended sentence (Sentence B) to be served consecutively to Sentence A.
• District Court of Doña Ana County, April 17, 2009: Court revoked probation for Sentence A, initially indicating it would run concurrently with Sentence B, but later amended this decision to reflect non-concurrency.

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that the April Order making Sentences A and B concurrent was illegal and requested it be modified to reflect that Sentence A does not run concurrently with Sentence B (para 7).
• Defendant: Contended that the last sentencing judge determines if cases are concurrent/consecutive, implying the April Order should stand (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the court's order removing the "concurrent" provision from the Defendant's sentences impermissibly lengthened his sentence.
• Whether the April Order making Sentence A run concurrently with Sentence B was contrary to law.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the order granting the motion to correct the error in the April Order, thereby removing the "concurrent" provision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion (para 20).

Reasons

• The court, led by Judge Michael D. Bustamante with Judges Roderick T. Kennedy and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, reasoned that the original sentences were imposed correctly under the law. Sentence A, being the first sentence, could not have been concurrent or consecutive to anything at the time of its imposition. Sentence B was correctly made consecutive to Sentence A. The court further held that the April Order's language making Sentence A concurrent with Sentence B was illegal under NMSA 1978, Section 31-18-21(B) (1977), as it attempted to modify the original order of the sentences contrary to statutory requirements. The court concluded that the district court had the authority to correct this error, affirming the decision to remove the "concurrent" provision from the April Order (paras 8-19).