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• The Defendant, Thomas Ramirez, was sentenced after his probation was revoked. The probation revocation was related to a charge of possession of heroin under the Controlled Substances Act. The district court had initially entered a conditional discharge for this offense, which was later withdrawn due to Ramirez's failure to successfully complete the required period of probation, leading to his incarceration for the remainder of his original sentence.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Thomas Ramirez): Argued that the district court erred in using a conditional discharge for the offense of possession of heroin to enhance his sentence as a habitual offender.
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in using a conditional discharge for the offense of possession of heroin to enhance the Defendant's sentence as a habitual offender.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court after the Defendant's probation was revoked.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring): The Court found no error in the district court's decision to enhance the Defendant's sentence as a habitual offender based on the possession of heroin charge. The Court relied on the record, which reflected that the heroin charge was never conditionally discharged because the Defendant failed to successfully complete the required period of probation. The Defendant's probation was revoked, the conditional discharge was withdrawn, and he was ordered to be incarcerated for the remainder of his original sentence. The Defendant's arguments, referencing State v. Franklin and State v. Boyer, did not provide new facts or authorities that persuaded the Court that the proposed summary disposition was in error. The burden was on the Defendant to clearly point out errors in fact or law, which he failed to do (paras 1-4).