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 escaped from the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility on January 7, 1985, while serving a sentence for burglary. He was apprehended and returned to custody on January 10, 1985, to continue serving his burglary sentence. Subsequently, the Defendant pled guilty to the escape charge and was sentenced to an additional nine years, to be served consecutively to his burglary sentence (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court, December 10, 1985: The Defendant was sentenced to nine years for escape, to run consecutively to his burglary sentence. The court later granted the Defendant's motion for eleven months of presentence confinement credit (paras 1-2).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant was not entitled to presentence confinement credit because the eleven months of incarceration were due to his prior burglary sentence, not the escape charge. The State contended that granting such credit would violate statutory requirements for consecutive sentencing under NMSA 1978, Section 31-18-21 (paras 3, 7).
• Defendant-Appellee: Claimed entitlement to presentence confinement credit for the eleven months between his apprehension and sentencing for the escape charge. He argued that a codefendant in the same case received similar credit and that the precedent set in State v. Ramzy supported his position (paras 4-5).

Legal Issues

• Was the Defendant entitled to presentence confinement credit for the eleven months served between his apprehension and sentencing for the escape charge?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the District Court's decision to grant the Defendant presentence confinement credit (para 7).

Reasons

Per Baca J. (Sosa C.J. and Montgomery J. concurring):

The Court held that the Defendant was not entitled to presentence confinement credit because the eleven months of incarceration were attributable to his prior burglary sentence, not the escape charge. Under NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-12, presentence confinement credit is only allowed if the confinement is a direct result of the felony for which the sentence is imposed. Additionally, NMSA 1978, Section 31-18-21 mandates that sentences for felonies committed while serving a prior sentence must run consecutively, making it impossible to grant concurrent presentence credit (paras 3, 7).

The Court distinguished this case from State v. Ramzy, where presentence credit was granted due to a sufficient connection between the charges. Here, the Defendant's confinement was solely due to his prior burglary sentence, and no bond was set for the escape charge. The Court found the facts more analogous to State v. Orona, where presentence credit was denied because the confinement was unrelated to the new charge (paras 5-7).

The Court also rejected the Defendant's argument regarding equal treatment with his codefendant, noting that the codefendant's circumstances differed as he was on parole at the time of the escape and his confinement was directly related to the escape charge (para 4).