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

• In 2004, the Defendant was sentenced for a fourth-offense aggravated DWI, including a six-month incarceration followed by a probation period. Before the end of this probation period in 2007, the Defendant was arrested for another DWI, violating his probation conditions. However, a probation revocation hearing was not held until after the probation period had expired, leading to a legal question about the jurisdiction to revoke probation post-expiration (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• State v. Ordunez, 2010-NMCA-095, 148 N.M. 620, 241 P.3d 621: The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the probation revocation proceedings, agreeing that the Defendant's probation could not be revoked after its expiration (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Petitioner: Argued that the district court had jurisdiction to revoke the Defendant's probation after its expiration, based on a violation occurring before the end of the probation period.
• Defendant-Respondent: Contended that once the probation period expired, the court lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation, regardless of any violations that occurred before the expiration.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to revoke the Defendant's probation after the probationary term had expired.
• Whether the statutory provisions governing sentence credit for time served on probation were those in effect in 2004 (the time of the underlying DWI offense) or those in effect in 2007 (the time of the alleged probation violation) (paras 1, 12).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the district court and the Court of Appeals that the Defendant's probation could not be revoked after it had expired. It also held that the statutory provisions in effect at the time of the Defendant's 2004 offense applied, granting full credit for time served on probation (para 23).

Reasons

• Per Charles W. Daniels, Justice (with Petra Jimenez Maes, Chief Justice, Patricio M. Serna, Justice, Richard C. Bosson, Justice, Edward L. Chávez, Justice concurring):
  The Court found that the district court and the Court of Appeals correctly determined that probation could not be revoked after its expiration based on established New Mexico precedent and statutory interpretation. The Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals' interpretation regarding the applicable statutory provisions for sentence credit, holding that the statutes in effect at the time of the Defendant's original offense in 2004 applied, not the amended statutes in 2007. This decision was grounded in principles of statutory interpretation, the presumption against retroactive legislation, and constitutional ex post facto protections, concluding that applying the 2007 amendments retroactively would increase the punishment for the Defendant's 2004 offense in violation of these principles (paras 6-22).