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 sentenced to incarceration for battery on a peace officer and driving while intoxicated (DWI), with sentences to be served concurrently. The sentence was suspended for eighteen months of supervised probation. The Defendant's probation was first revoked, and she was ordered to serve 182 days but was released after ninety-one days due to good-time credit. The State filed a second motion to revoke probation, leading to the Defendant being sentenced to 295 days of incarceration. The Defendant argued that she should have been credited for the full 182 days initially sentenced, not just the ninety-one days served (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, February 15, 2013: Probation revoked, Defendant ordered to serve 182 days in Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), with authorization to earn good-time credit (para 2).
• District Court of Bernalillo County, July 3, 2013: Second probation revocation, Defendant sentenced to 295 days of incarceration (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not crediting her for the full 182 days initially sentenced for the first probation revocation, instead of just the ninety-one days actually served due to good-time credit (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the 295-day sentence was correct, calculating the time left on the Defendant's sentence from the date of discharge from probation to the end of the eighteen-month sentence (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not crediting the Defendant for the full 182 days initially sentenced for the first probation revocation, instead of just the ninety-one days actually served due to good-time credit (para 3).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed as moot because the Defendant had already completed the sentence imposed by the district court, and no ruling from the Court of Appeals would grant the Defendant any actual relief (para 4).

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, J. (JAMES J. WECHSLER, J., and MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, J., concurring):
  The Court of Appeals determined the appeal to be moot as the Defendant had completed her sentence, and an appellate ruling would not provide any relief. The Court also noted that the Defendant did not identify any collateral consequences that could arise from permitting the district court's order to stand. The Court declined to exercise its discretion to reach the merits of the case, as the Defendant failed to convince the Court that the issue presented was of substantial public interest or capable of repetition yet evading review (paras 4-6).