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, Troy Hall, was sentenced in two criminal cases, identified by their case numbers CR-1069 and CR-590, to incarceration followed by probation/parole, with the sentences to run consecutively. Issues arose regarding the calculation and characterization of the Defendant's sentence during his probation revocation and resentencing hearings, particularly concerning whether he was properly credited for time spent on probation. The Defendant was accused of absconding from probation after admitting to drug use, leading to a warrant for his arrest that was not entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database in a timely manner.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that he received an illegal sentence due to mischaracterizations and miscalculations at his probation revocation and resentencing hearings and was wrongly deprived of credit for time spent on probation because the district court improperly determined he was absconding from probation.
• Appellee (State): Agreed that remanding to the district court for a determination of the amount of probation credit to which the Defendant is entitled is a proper remedy.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was improperly characterized as a "fugitive" and thereby wrongly deprived of credit for time spent on probation.
• Whether the Defendant's sentence was illegally calculated due to mischaracterizations and miscalculations at his probation revocation and resentencing hearings.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals concluded that the Defendant's sentence was illegal due to improper tolling of his probation period and lack of credit for time served on probation. The case was reversed and remanded for recalculation of the Defendant's sentence.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Michael D. Bustamante, J., concurring):
  The Court found that the State failed to meet its burden of proving the Defendant was a fugitive under NMSA 1978, Section 31-21-15(C) (1989), as it did not prove that the warrant for the probation violation was unable to be served before the Defendant could be regarded as a fugitive from justice. The warrant issued for the Defendant's arrest was not entered into the NCIC database immediately, and the State's attempt to re-issue the bench warrant nunc pro tunc did not satisfy the requirements to prove fugitive status. The Court determined that the Defendant's admission of absconding from supervision was insufficient to automatically toll his time on probation. Consequently, the Court concluded that tolling the time during which the Defendant was an absconder was improper, and he should have received credit for time on probation from July 16, 2007, through June 28, 2008. The failure to properly credit this time resulted in an illegal sentence, necessitating a remand for accurate recalculation of the Defendant's remaining obligations under his sentence.