Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses - cited by 5,979 documents
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,887 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
State v. Duhon - cited by 116 documents
State v. Hansen - cited by 14 documents
Decision Content
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
No. A-1-CA-39341
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KEITH VOLLENWEIDER,
Defendant-Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY
James Waylon Counts, District Judge
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Cole P. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
Law Offices of Michael L. Stout
Michael L. Stout
Las Cruces, NM
for Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MEDINA, Judge.
{1} The State appeals from an amended judgment and sentence, entered after Defendant pled guilty to sexual exploitation of children (possession); the original judgment was amended to award Defendant 1058 days of presentence confinement credit. The State appealed the award of credit, and we issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. The State has responded with a memorandum in opposition. We affirm.
{2} Without reiterating the analysis in our calendar notice, we note that we relied on State v. Hansen, 2021-NMCA-048, ¶ 32, 495 P.3d 1173, and State v. Duhon, 2005-NMCA-120, ¶¶ 3, 10-13, 138 N.M. 466, 122 P.3d 50, which held that credit should be awarded where a violation of conditions of release would subject a defendant to prosecution for escape from a community custody release program under NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-8.1 (1999). The State’s memorandum in opposition asks that we revisit Hansen and Duhon. We decline the State’s invitation. Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
WE CONCUR:
MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge
ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge