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 on probation when a motion to revoke his probation was filed. The adjudicatory hearing on the motion was not held within the time limits prescribed by Rule 5-805 NMRA, which governs the timing of probation revocation proceedings. The Defendant argued that the delay violated the rule and sought dismissal of the motion to revoke probation.

Procedural History

• District Court, Bernalillo County: The district court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the petition to revoke probation and subsequently revoked his probation based on his admission, while allowing him to reserve the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the adjudicatory hearing on the motion to revoke probation was not held within the time limits prescribed by Rule 5-805 NMRA, and therefore, the motion to revoke probation should have been dismissed with prejudice.
• State-Appellee: Agreed with the Defendant and the Court of Appeals' proposed analysis that the adjudicatory hearing was untimely and that the proper remedy was to dismiss the motion to revoke probation.

Legal Issues

• Was the adjudicatory hearing on the motion to revoke probation held within the time limits prescribed by Rule 5-805 NMRA?
• Should the motion to revoke probation have been dismissed with prejudice due to the untimely hearing?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and held that the motion to revoke probation should have been dismissed with prejudice.

Reasons

Per Kennedy J. (Castillo and Garcia JJ. concurring): The Court of Appeals found that the plain language of Rule 5-805 NMRA requires that an adjudicatory hearing on a motion to revoke probation must commence no later than 60 days after the initial hearing. If this time limit is not met, the rule mandates dismissal of the motion with prejudice. The Court noted that the adjudicatory hearing in this case was not held within the prescribed time frame, and the State did not seek an extension of time. Both the Defendant and the State agreed that the proper remedy was to dismiss the motion to revoke probation. Based on these findings, the Court reversed the district court's decision.