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

• A child, after being arrested for involvement in a fatal shooting, was indicted on charges including first-degree murder. Upon trial, the child was acquitted of first-degree murder but found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and tampering with evidence. Consequently, the child was adjudicated as a delinquent offender and committed to the custody of the New Mexico Children Youth and Families Department (CYFD) for a period not exceeding two years. The child had been detained for twenty-five months prior to this adjudication and sought presentence confinement credit for this period against his commitment to CYFD (paras 2, 6-7).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Ross C. Sanchez, District Court Judge: The child was adjudicated a delinquent offender and committed to CYFD custody for an indeterminate period not exceeding two years. The court ruled the child was not entitled to presentence confinement credit (para 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Child): Argued that he is entitled to presentence confinement credit against his commitment to CYFD, citing the basic rights entitled to a child under the Delinquency Act, the specific provision for serious youthful offenders to receive presentence confinement credit, and asserting that denying such credit violates due process of law (paras 8-9, 11, 19).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the denial of presentence confinement credit does not violate the child's due process rights, noting this argument was not preserved at the district court level (para 19).

Legal Issues

• Whether a child adjudicated as a delinquent offender on a lesser-included offense is entitled to presentence confinement credit against his commitment to CYFD (para 1).
• Whether the denial of presentence confinement credit to a child adjudicated as a delinquent offender violates the child's right to due process of law (para 19).

Disposition

• The district court's judgment denying the child presentence confinement credit in its dispositional judgment was affirmed (para 20).

Reasons

• The Court, with an opinion authored by Judge Michael E. Vigil and concurrence from Judges Michael D. Bustamante and J. Miles Hanisee, held that the applicable statutes intentionally omit and thereby preclude granting presentence confinement credit to a child adjudicated as a delinquent offender. The Court reasoned that the distinction between a sentence and a disposition is both meaningful and intentional, with presentence confinement credit applying only to serious youthful offenders sentenced as adults, not to children adjudicated as delinquent offenders. The Court further noted that the legislative intent behind the Children’s Code is to treat children differently from adults, focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment, and that awarding presentence confinement credit would not align with these objectives. The Court declined to address the due process argument due to lack of preservation at the district court level (paras 8-19).