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 convicted of misdemeanor aggravated battery, a crime committed while he was already incarcerated on other charges. His sentence for this conviction was ordered to run consecutively to his previous sentence.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that he was erroneously denied pre-sentence confinement credit for the time spent in custody before sentencing. He referred to case law addressing "double credit" for confinement related to more than one offense and claimed entitlement to some credit solely related to the current conviction.
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was erroneously denied pre-sentence confinement credit for the period spent in custody before the sentencing of his misdemeanor aggravated battery conviction.

Disposition

• The appeal to grant the Defendant additional pre-sentence confinement credit was denied, affirming the district court's decision.

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, with M. Monica Zamora and Julie J. Vargas, Judges concurring, provided the reasoning for the decision. The court noted that the Defendant's sentence for the misdemeanor aggravated battery, committed while already incarcerated, was statutorily required to run consecutively to his previous sentence. Given this requirement and the legislative directive to view sentences in the aggregate, the court found that the Defendant was not entitled to additional pre-sentence confinement credit. The court distinguished the Defendant's reliance on case law regarding "double credit" by clarifying that such case law does not apply to consecutively run sentences. The court also addressed the Defendant's claim for credit solely related to the current conviction, indicating that any such credit was considered within the overall sentence. The court concluded that the district court's calculation of credit did not amount to reversible error and suggested that the Defendant could seek relief from the district court if he could prove the calculations were incorrect (paras 1-5).