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, David Abeyta, was held in the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) and faced delays in the processing of a nolle prosequi, which is a formal notice of abandonment by a plaintiff or prosecutor of all or part of a suit or action. The Defendant was also serving time on a different, unrelated charge during this period. He sought presentence confinement credit for the time spent in custody due to the delayed processing of the nolle prosequi and for the period between his arraignment and when he posted bond.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant was not entitled to presentence confinement credit for the time related to the delay in processing the nolle prosequi since he was serving time on an unrelated charge.
• Defendant-Appellant (David Abeyta): Contended that he is entitled to presentence confinement credit for the time he was erroneously held by the MDC due to the delay in processing the nolle prosequi and for the time from his arraignment until he posted bond.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant is entitled to presentence confinement credit for the time when he was being erroneously held by the MDC due to a delay in processing a nolle prosequi.
• Whether the Defendant should be awarded presentence confinement credit for the time from his arraignment until he posted bond.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's order denying the Defendant's request for presentence confinement credit related to the delayed processing of the nolle prosequi but acknowledged that the Defendant had already been granted credit for the time from his arraignment until he posted bond.

Reasons

• VIGIL, Chief Judge, with BUSTAMANTE, Judge, and FRENCH, Judge, concurring: The court found that the Defendant did not present any new evidence, facts, arguments, or issues beyond those addressed in the court's notice of proposed disposition regarding the delayed processing of the nolle prosequi (para 2). The court referred to its previous analysis, which concluded that the Defendant was not serving incarceration or confinement due to the delay in processing the nolle prosequi since he was, instead, serving time on a different, unrelated charge. Regarding the Defendant's request for credit for the time from his arraignment until he posted bond, the court reviewed the record and found that the Defendant had, in fact, been given credit for this time as part of the 169 days of presentence confinement credit awarded by the district court in its judgment and sentence (para 3).