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 Petitioner, currently serving a life sentence in Texas, sought post-conviction relief in New Mexico, arguing that his New Mexico sentence, which is to be served consecutively to his Texas sentence, was imposed in violation of constitutional or legal standards. The district court dismissed his petition, reasoning that the Petitioner was not in custody within New Mexico for the purposes of seeking habeas corpus relief.
Procedural History
- District Court: Denied the Petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief on the grounds that he was not in custody within New Mexico.
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner: Argued that he is entitled to post-conviction relief under New Mexico law despite being incarcerated in Texas, as his New Mexico sentence is consecutive to his Texas sentence.
- Respondent (Attorney General): Agreed that the Petitioner is entitled to pursue post-conviction relief, citing precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court and other jurisdictions that a consecutive sentence constitutes sufficient custody for habeas corpus purposes.
Legal Issues
- Whether a defendant incarcerated in another state, serving a sentence consecutive to a New Mexico sentence, is considered "in custody" for purposes of seeking post-conviction relief under New Mexico law.
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the district court’s dismissal of the Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition and remanded the case for consideration on its merits.
Reasons
Per Ransom J. (Sosa C.J. and Baca J. concurring):
The Court held that the Petitioner is "in custody" for purposes of post-conviction relief under Rule 5-802, even though he is physically incarcerated in Texas. The Court relied on precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court in Peyton v. Rowe, which established that a consecutive sentence yet to begin constitutes sufficient custody for habeas corpus purposes. The Court also noted similar rulings from other jurisdictions, including New Mexico’s own precedent in State v. Brill, which recognized that lack of physical custody within the state does not bar post-conviction relief when the defendant remains subject to the legal custody of the sentencing court. The Attorney General’s agreement with this interpretation further supported the decision.