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 entered a conditional plea of no contest to a misdemeanor offense for using a telephone to engage in behavior that was considered to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend. This plea was entered with the reservation of the right to appeal on the grounds of jurisdiction and First Amendment protections. Following the plea, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended term of confinement and a probation period, with an immediate requirement to report to a misdemeanor compliance program (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• State v. Warren, A-1-CA-37589, mem. op. ¶ 6 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2019) (nonprecedential): The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's judgment and sentence.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court violated his rights to due process and speedy imposition of sentence by failing to enforce the judgment and sentence after the appellate court's mandate. Additionally, contended that the district court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on his motion to dismiss (paras 4, 6).
• Appellee: Contended that the Defendant did not preserve the argument regarding the delay in executing the sentence for appeal and that the Defendant's motion to dismiss was based on an inapplicable rule (paras 5, 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court violated the Defendant's rights to due process and speedy imposition of sentence by failing to enforce the judgment and sentence after the appellate court's mandate.
• Whether the district court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on the Defendant's motion to dismiss (paras 4, 6).

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss was affirmed (para 9).

Reasons

• The Court found that the Defendant did not preserve the issue of delay in executing the sentence for appeal, as his arguments were not presented to the trial court in a manner that would allow for an intelligent ruling on the due process and speedy imposition claims. The Court also noted that the Defendant's motion to dismiss was based on a rule that had been withdrawn more than a decade prior to his filing, rendering his argument for an evidentiary hearing moot. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the Defendant did not present himself for probation as required, and no rule supported his assertion that he was not required to do so until after an evidentiary hearing was held. The decision was unanimous, with Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, J. Miles Hanisee, and Megan P. Duffy concurring in the judgment and reasons for the decision (paras 4-8).