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 indicted on sixty-six counts involving fraud, embezzlement, and forgery under the Racketeering Act. Pursuant to a plea agreement, all but six of the counts were dismissed. After the plea agreement was accepted but before sentencing, the Defendant moved to withdraw the plea. The district court denied this motion and sentenced the Defendant to forty-two years of imprisonment followed by two years of parole and five years of probation (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• State v. Miller, 2012-NMCA-051, 278 P.3d 561, cert. granted, 2012-NMCERT-005, 294 P.3d 446 and aff’d in part, rev’d in part, State v. Miller (Miller II), 2013-NMSC-048, 314 P.3d 655: The Court of Appeals vacated the sentence and remanded for withdrawal of the plea or resentencing. The Supreme Court reversed, agreeing the sentence violated the plea agreement but disagreed that Defendant should be permitted to withdraw the plea. It ordered the district court to inform the Defendant that it will embody in the judgment and sentence the disposition provided for in the plea agreement (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the sentence violated his plea agreement, the State violated his right to be free from double jeopardy, and the district court erred in calculating the amount of restitution and pre-sentence confinement (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's double jeopardy rights were violated by the State’s sale of seized vehicles before he entered a plea.
• Whether the district court erred in calculating restitution amounts and pre-sentence confinement credit (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals remanded to the district court for re-sentencing consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision and for the Defendant to raise and introduce evidence pertaining to whether his right to be free from double jeopardy was violated by the sale of the seized vehicles. The Court affirmed the district court as to the restitution amount and credit for pre-sentence confinement (para 17).

Reasons

• The Court found insufficient facts in the record to consider whether the Defendant’s double jeopardy rights were violated and remanded to the district court for development of this issue. The Court declined to review the Defendant’s other arguments regarding the propriety of the forty-two-year sentence, restitution, and pre-sentence confinement credit due to either lack of preservation or inadequate development for appeal. The Court noted that the Defendant may raise the issue of double jeopardy and accompanying evidence in the district court on remand (paras 6-17).