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• The case involves the Defendant, Clifton O’Dell, whose probation was revoked by the district court. The revocation was based on the assertion that he was a fugitive from justice, which stemmed from an arrest order signed by a probation official rather than a court-issued arrest warrant. The State argued that the probation official's arrest order should be treated as equivalent to a court-issued arrest warrant for the purposes of determining fugitive status and revoking probation.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Michael Martinez, District Judge, dated January 2, 2018.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant Clifton O’Dell): [Not applicable or not found]
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that an arrest order signed by a probation official should be treated as an arrest warrant issued by the court for the purposes of determining fugitive status and revoking probation (paras 2-3, 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether an arrest order signed by a probation official constitutes an arrest warrant issued by the court for the purposes of determining fugitive status under the statute.
• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to revoke the Defendant's probation based on the assertion that he was a fugitive from justice, given that no court-issued arrest warrant was in place prior to the expiration of his probation term.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order revoking Defendant's probation and remanded for further proceedings.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges Michael E. Vigil and Emil J. Kiehne concurring, found that the State failed to meet the requirements for proving fugitive status, which necessitates the issuance of a warrant by the court and entry of the warrant in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. The Court emphasized that the statute and case law require a court-issued warrant for a probationer to be considered a fugitive, and an arrest order signed by a probation official does not suffice for this purpose. The Court also noted that policy arguments presented by the State regarding the intent of the statute discussing fugitive status are matters for the Legislature to address. Consequently, the Court concluded that the district court did not have jurisdiction to revoke the Defendant's probation on the grounds of him being a fugitive, as the probation period had expired without a court-issued warrant (paras 1-8).