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 three years for two felony counts, with the sentence suspended except for time served, and was placed on supervised probation for the balance of the three years followed by a year of parole. This probation was to run consecutive to any sentence imposed as a result of the Defendant's probation violation in Taos, New Mexico. The Defendant had an open probation violation in Taos at the time of sentencing. The Defendant's probation in the Taos case was revoked, and he was incarcerated until December 28, 2008. The Defendant moved to dismiss the probation revocation proceeding, arguing that the probationary period had already expired, claiming it started the day after he was sentenced for the revocation proceeding in the Taos case.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation as the probationary period had already expired, claiming it began the day after sentencing for a probation violation in another case.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to revoke the Defendant's probation after the probationary term had been served.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation and imposing judgment and sentence.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Michael D. Bustamante, J., and Michael E. Vigil, J., concurring): The Court found that the Defendant's probation period in CR 349 was to begin after serving the sentence imposed in the probation revocation proceedings in CR 103, based on a plain reading of the sentence's language stating it runs "consecutive to [the other] sentence." The Court rejected the Defendant's interpretation that his probation began the day after he was sentenced for the probation violation in CR 103, aligning with the general rule that a new sentence is served consecutive to an older one unless ordered otherwise. The Defendant's reassertion of his contention without challenging the Court's observations or legal analysis did not warrant a different outcome.