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 case concerns the imposition of two 364-day sentences by a magistrate. The record is silent on whether these sentences were to run consecutively or concurrently. Under common law, unless explicitly stated otherwise, sentences are presumed to run concurrently.
Procedural History
- Fifth Judicial District Court, December 30, 1993: The court issued a writ of certiorari to review the magistrate's sentencing decision.
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner: [Not applicable or not found]
- Respondent: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the two 364-day sentences imposed by the magistrate should run consecutively or concurrently.
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico quashed the writ of certiorari and returned the record to the Fifth Judicial District Court Clerk.
Reasons
The Court found that the record did not specify whether the sentences were to run consecutively. Under common law, in the absence of a statute or explicit order, sentences are presumed to run concurrently. The Court cited prior case law, including State v. Padilla, State v. Mayberry, and Deats v. State, to support this principle. As the sentences were presumed concurrent, there was no basis for further action by the Court.