AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

Citations - New Mexico Laws and Court Rules
Rule Set 5 - Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts - cited by 2,180 documents

Decision Content

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 subject to an "order revoking probation and imposing judgment and sentence." The Defendant later challenged this sentence, but the challenge was denied by the district court for being untimely.

Procedural History

  • Appeal from the District Court of Lea County, William G. Shoobridge, District Judge: The district court denied the Defendant's post-judgment challenge to the sentence for untimeliness.

Parties' Submissions

  • Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the motion to amend the judgment and sentence, filed on December 18, 2013, was timely and that the district court failed to consider it on its merits.
  • Plaintiff-Appellee: Notified the Court of Appeals that it does not oppose the Defendant's notice proposing to reverse and remand for consideration of the merits of the Defendant's outstanding motion.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's post-judgment challenge to the sentence for untimeliness.
  • Whether the Defendant's December 18, 2013, motion to amend the judgment and sentence was a timely and outstanding Rule 5-801(B) NMRA motion that the district court failed to consider on its merits.

Disposition

  • The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for consideration of the merits of Defendant’s outstanding motion.

Reasons

  • Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, and Jonathan B. Sutin, Judge, concurring): The Court of Appeals decided to reverse and remand the case back to the district court for consideration of the merits of the Defendant's motion. This decision was based on the determination that the Defendant's motion to amend the judgment and sentence, filed on December 18, 2013, was indeed timely and had not been considered on its merits by the district court. The State's lack of opposition to the Defendant's notice further supported the Court's decision to reverse and remand (paras 1-2).
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.