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 appealed from the district court's order denying his motion to amend his judgment and sentence, specifically concerning the addition of trustee good time credit to his pre-sentence confinement credit.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Chaves County, Freddie J. Romero, District Judge, June 13, 2013: The district court denied the Defendant's motion to amend his judgment and sentence.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]
• Appellant (Johnny Candelaria): Contended that the district court lost jurisdiction because it failed to include the good time credit in the judgment and sentence (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to add Defendant’s trustee good time credit to his pre-sentence confinement credit.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to amend his judgment and sentence.

Reasons

• Per James J. Wechsler, with Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and Linda M. Vanzi, Judge concurring:
  The Court of Appeals proposed to affirm the district court's decision on all three issues raised by the Defendant. The Defendant did not challenge the Court's proposed disposition with respect to two of the issues, effectively abandoning them (para 1).
  Regarding the jurisdiction to add trustee good time credit to pre-sentence confinement credit, the Court of Appeals referenced the Supreme Court's holding in State v. Aqui, which stated that the deduction of good time credits from an inmate’s sentence is a discretionary matter entrusted not to the courts but to the administrators of the Corrections Department or the county jails. This administrative responsibility means the district court did not have the authority to amend the judgment and sentence as requested by the Defendant (para 2).
  The Court affirmed the district court's denial based on the Defendant's failure to demonstrate an error in the Court's proposed conclusion that the allocation of good time credit is an administrative matter over which the district court had no authority (para 2).