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

• In September 2016, Ernesto Martinez, president of Bar M Construction, discovered unauthorized charges on the company's Home Depot credit account. The company did not use physical credit cards but authorized certain employees for direct charges. After noticing missing mail and unauthorized transactions, Martinez investigated through receipts and surveillance footage at Home Depot, identifying several transactions not conforming to company practices, including purchases made under the names of authorized users Susana Gutierrez and Noe Martinez, but neither appeared in the surveillance footage. The Defendant, Valerey Herrera, was shown in surveillance footage making one of these unauthorized transactions (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• District Court of Otero County: Defendant was convicted of fraudulent use of a credit card and conspiracy to commit fraudulent use of a credit card (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State presented insufficient evidence for the conspiracy conviction, erred in setting the restitution amount, and erred in denying presentence confinement credit for time served between sentencing in an earlier case and this case (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit fraudulent use of a credit card.
• Whether the district court erred in setting the amount of restitution.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant presentence confinement credit for the period between sentencing in an earlier case and sentencing in this case.

Disposition

• The conviction for conspiracy regarding the transaction made by the Defendant is affirmed.
• The district court’s order of restitution is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to recalculate the restitution amount based only on the single transaction for which the Defendant was convicted.
• The district court’s denial of presentence confinement credit is affirmed (para 29).

Reasons

• DUFFY, Judge: Affirmed the conspiracy conviction based on circumstantial evidence suggesting Defendant's agreement with at least one other person to fraudulently use a credit card. The restitution order was reversed because it was based on all nine transactions, exceeding the scope of the Defendant's conviction. The denial of presentence confinement credit was affirmed because the time sought by the Defendant was already counted toward a sentence in a prior case, and the facts did not meet the criteria for dual credit. The decision was concurred by Judges ATTREP and HENDERSON, emphasizing the application of legal standards to the evidence presented at trial and statutory interpretations regarding restitution and presentence confinement credit (paras 8-28).