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 pleaded guilty to residential burglary and was sentenced to a deferred sentence of three years, during which he was placed on probation. The Defendant failed to report to his probation officer as required, missed multiple appointments, and could not be located by his probation officer. A bench warrant was issued but was not entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, and no attempts were made to serve it. The Defendant was later arrested in Texas on unrelated charges, and his probation was subsequently revoked (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• State v. Jimenez, 2003-NMCA-026: The Court of Appeals held that the Defendant failed to preserve the issue of credit for time served on probation and upheld the district court's implicit finding that the Defendant was a fugitive under NMSA 1978, § 31-21-15(C) (paras 1, 6).
• District Court, August 23, 2001: The district court revoked the Defendant's probation and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment, followed by two years of parole (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that he was entitled to credit for time served on probation under NMSA 1978, § 31-21-15(B), and that the district court erred in denying such credit. He also contended that he was constructively on probation from the date of sentencing and that the State failed to act with due diligence in serving the warrant (paras 8, 12).
• State: Asserted that the Defendant failed to preserve the issue of credit for time served on probation at the district court level and argued that the Defendant was not entitled to such credit because he never reported to probation or signed a probation order. The State also claimed that the Defendant was a fugitive under § 31-21-15(C) (paras 9, 12).

Legal Issues

• Was the Defendant entitled to credit for time served on probation under NMSA 1978, § 31-21-15(B)?
• Did the district court err in implicitly finding that the Defendant was a fugitive under NMSA 1978, § 31-21-15(C)?
• Could the Defendant raise the issue of credit for time served on probation for the first time on appeal?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Defendant was entitled to credit for time served on probation (paras 1, 17-18).

Reasons

Per Pamela B. Minzner J. (Maes CJ., Serna J., and Chávez J. concurring):

• The Court held that the Defendant was constructively on probation from the date of sentencing, even though he failed to report to the probation office or sign a probation order. The statutory language of § 31-21-15(B) does not require successful probation for credit to be granted (paras 12-13).
• The Court determined that the Defendant could raise the issue of credit for time served on probation for the first time on appeal because he lacked sufficient notice that his fugitive status would be considered at the district court level. The failure to object at the time of the ruling did not prejudice his ability to raise the issue on appeal (paras 10-11).
• The Court found that the district court's implicit finding that the Defendant was a fugitive under § 31-21-15(C) was not supported by substantial evidence. The State failed to demonstrate that it made reasonable efforts to serve the warrant or that any attempt to serve the Defendant would have been futile. The failure to enter the warrant into the NCIC database weighed heavily against a finding of due diligence by the State (paras 14-15).
• The Court remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Defendant was entitled to credit for time served on probation. If the State could show that attempts to serve the warrant would have been futile or that reasonable efforts were made, the district court could deny credit; otherwise, the Defendant must be given credit for the full time he was on probation (para 16).