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 sentenced to probation after pleading guilty to trafficking methamphetamine, anabolic steroids, and conspiracy to commit trafficking in methamphetamine. During his probation, he violated the zero-tolerance condition for illegal drugs and substances by testing positive for alcohol and was found in possession of illegal anabolic steroids following a controlled delivery and search by law enforcement. The district court revoked his probation and reinstated his original sentence with a partial suspension, leading to his appeal.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, June 12, 2013: Defendant pled guilty to trafficking charges and was sentenced to probation.
• District Court of Bernalillo County, December 18, 2014: Probation was revoked, and Defendant was sentenced to incarceration followed by probation.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not calculating credit for time served on probation or in presentence confinement, erred in denying his motion for reconsideration without a hearing, violated his right to equal protection, failed to comply with mandatory sentencing requirements, unlawfully increased his sentence, and imposed an excessive sentence constituting cruel and unusual punishment.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Agreed that the district court erred in not calculating credit for time served on probation but contested other claims made by the Defendant.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not calculating and including credit for time served on probation or in presentence confinement.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for reconsideration without a hearing.
• Whether the imposition of consecutive sentences violated the Defendant's right to equal protection.
• Whether the judgment and sentence complied with mandatory requirements.
• Whether the sentence imposed at the probation violation hearing unlawfully increased the Defendant's sentence.
• Whether the Defendant's sentence to eighteen years' imprisonment after his probation violation was excessive and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant's sentence but remanded for the district court to calculate and correct its orders to include the credit toward his sentence to which he is entitled under the statute governing revocation of probation.

Reasons

• The Court found that the Defendant is entitled to credit for time served on probation prior to the order revoking probation (paras 8-11). It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion for reconsideration without a hearing, as no valid basis for the relief sought was presented (paras 13-14). The Court also found no merit in the Defendant's equal protection claim regarding consecutive sentences, noting the issue was not preserved for review (paras 15-17). The initial judgment and sentence were found to be valid, with reasonable conditions attached for probation (paras 18-19). The Court disagreed with the Defendant's claim that the district court increased his sentence upon revocation of probation, violating double jeopardy protections, and found no error in the imposition of an additional probationary term after incarceration (paras 20-21). Lastly, the Court concluded that the Defendant's sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, as it was authorized by statute and within the district court's discretion (paras 22-23).