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 released on pretrial conditions, including supervision by Bernalillo County’s Pretrial Services program and electronic monitoring via GPS. The Defendant sought presentence confinement credit for the time spent under these conditions, arguing that the restrictions placed him within the scope of state custody eligible for such credit.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: The State's position on the Defendant's request for presentence confinement credit is not explicitly detailed in the decision.
• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the conditions of his pretrial release, specifically supervision by Bernalillo County’s Pretrial Services and GPS monitoring, should qualify him for presentence confinement credit. The Defendant highlighted that violation of these conditions could lead to prosecution for escape, indicating a form of state custody.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's pretrial release conditions, including GPS monitoring and supervision by Bernalillo County’s Pretrial Services, qualify him for presentence confinement credit under the two-part rule announced in State v. Fellhauer.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the lower court, denying the Defendant's request for presentence confinement credit for the period he was released under GPS monitoring and supervision by Bernalillo County’s Pretrial Services.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge, and EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge, concurring): The court found that the Defendant did not satisfy the two-part rule from State v. Fellhauer for presentence confinement credit. While the Defendant established the second part of the rule by showing he could be prosecuted for escape if he violated his pretrial release conditions, he failed to demonstrate that he was under house arrest or faced any specific restrictions on his freedom of movement that would satisfy the first part of the Fellhauer rule. Consequently, the court concluded that the Defendant was not in actual or constructive state custody for the purposes of presentence confinement credit (paras 1-3).