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 on December 22, 2008, and subsequently incarcerated at the Otero County Detention Center (OCDC) until her transfer to the New Mexico Department of Corrections (DOC) on February 9, 2009. She sought credit for the time served at OCDC after sentencing and before her transfer, as well as good time credit for this period.

Procedural History

• District Court, December 22, 2008: The Defendant was sentenced, and her judgment and sentence credited her with presentence confinement from October 22, 2008, to December 22, 2008, but did not include credit for the time served at OCDC after sentencing.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in not modifying her sentence to include credit for time served at OCDC after sentencing and before transfer to the DOC. She also claimed entitlement to good time credit for this period, citing a determination by the OCDC administrator that she had earned such credit.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the Defendant was not entitled to presentence confinement credit for the period after sentencing and that the determination of good time credit is an administrative matter under the Earned Meritorious Deductions Act (EMDA), not within the district court's jurisdiction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was entitled to presentence confinement credit for the time served at OCDC after sentencing and before transfer to the DOC.
• Whether the Defendant was entitled to good time credit for the time served at OCDC after sentencing and before transfer to the DOC.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to modify her sentence.

Reasons

Per Wechsler J. (Sutin and Garcia JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the Defendant was not entitled to presentence confinement credit for the time served at OCDC after sentencing because her sentence "took effect" on December 22, 2008. Time served after that date was considered part of her sentence, not presentence confinement.
• The Court relied on precedent from State v. Clah, which established that time served after sentencing is not eligible for presentence credit.
• Regarding good time credit, the Court noted that under the EMDA, the determination of good time credit is an administrative matter handled by the DOC, not the sentencing court. The district court had no jurisdiction to award good time credit for the period in question.
• The Court acknowledged the Defendant's argument that the OCDC administrator had determined she was entitled to good time credit but held that any relief must be sought through a habeas corpus petition after the DOC's determination.