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 robbery and sentenced to the New Mexico Department of Corrections. The district court determined that the Defendant's robbery conviction was a "serious violent offense" under the Earned Meritorious Deductions Act (EMDA).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Did not file a memorandum in opposition to the notice of proposed disposition, indicating non-opposition to the appellate court's preliminary decision to reverse and remand. (para 1)
• Appellant (DeBryant Banks): Filed a notice of intent not to file a memorandum in support of the appellate court's proposed disposition and did not expressly indicate opposition or point out any error in fact or law with the proposed disposition. (para 1)

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's determination that the Defendant's robbery conviction constituted a "serious violent offense" under the EMDA was made without the necessary findings for appellate review. (para 1)

Disposition

• The appellate court reversed and remanded the case to the district court for consideration of whether the facts in the record support a determination that the Defendant’s robbery conviction constituted a serious violent offense under the EMDA and for entry of findings in that regard. (para 2)

Reasons

• Per VANZI, J. (BOGARDUS and MEDINA, JJ., concurring): The appellate court proposed to reverse and remand the case due to the absence of findings by the district court related to its application of the EMDA to the Defendant's robbery conviction. The State filed a notice of non-opposition to this proposal, and the Defendant did not file a memorandum in support but also did not express opposition. The appellate court emphasized the necessity for the district court to make specific findings to enable appellate review of whether it abused its discretion in determining the Defendant's conviction as a "serious violent offense" under the EMDA. (paras 1-2)