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 convicted of extortion, commercial burglary, and larceny involving theft of over $2,500 from the Artesia High School Credit Union. He was sentenced to seven and one-half years of incarceration and ordered to pay $3,200 in restitution. The Defendant challenged the restitution order, arguing procedural and substantive errors in its imposition (paras 1, 3, and 5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Eddy County: The Defendant was convicted and sentenced to seven and one-half years of incarceration and ordered to pay $3,200 in restitution (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) he was denied the opportunity to challenge the amount of restitution and his ability to pay, violating NMSA 1978, Section 31-17-1; (2) the trial court erred in ordering restitution because the victim, a credit union, was not a "person" under the statute; and (3) the trial court erred in ordering 50% of his wages to go toward restitution while incarcerated (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Conceded that the trial court erred in ordering restitution from the Defendant's wages while incarcerated but argued that the Defendant had notice of the restitution amount and an adequate remedy to challenge it under Section 31-17-1(C) and (F) (paras 2, 5, and 8).

Legal Issues

• Was the Defendant denied due process by not being given an opportunity to challenge the amount of restitution or his ability to pay?
• Did the trial court err in ordering restitution to a credit union, which is not a "person" under the statute?
• Did the trial court err in ordering 50% of the Defendant's wages to go toward restitution while incarcerated?

Disposition

• The portion of the judgment requiring restitution from the Defendant's wages while incarcerated was reversed (para 2).
• The case was remanded for further proceedings to provide the Defendant notice and an opportunity to challenge the restitution amount (para 9).
• The award of restitution to the credit union was affirmed (para 9).

Reasons

Per Chavez J. (Alarid and Apodaca JJ. concurring):

• Restitution from Wages: The court agreed with the State's concession that the trial court erred in ordering restitution from the Defendant's wages while incarcerated, as restitution is contemplated as part of probation or parole under Section 31-17-1 (para 2).

• Victim's Status as a "Person": The Defendant argued that the credit union was not a "person" under the restitution statute. The court rejected this argument, relying on its prior decision in State v. Griffin, which upheld restitution to entities that are not natural persons (para 3).

• Due Process and Restitution Amount: The court found that the Defendant was denied due process because he was not given adequate notice or an opportunity to challenge the restitution amount. The trial court had anticipated a stipulation on the amount, but no stipulation was reached, and the Defendant was not informed of the final amount before the judgment was entered. The court distinguished this case from State v. Lack, where the Defendant had prior notice of the restitution amount through a presentence report (paras 5-7).

• Adequate Remedy Argument: The State's argument that the Defendant could seek modification of the restitution plan under Section 31-17-1(C) and (F) was rejected. The court noted that no restitution plan existed in this case, and the Defendant was not required to seek a rehearing before filing his appeal (para 8).

The court reversed the restitution order related to wages, remanded for further proceedings on the restitution amount, and affirmed the award of restitution to the credit union (para 9).