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 objected to the form of a judgment and sentence entered by the district court, arguing that the court failed to hold a hearing on his objections and improperly included statements regarding his potential fugitive status. The Defendant's counsel had requested a hearing and filed written objections to the judgment's form, but the district court signed and entered the judgment without addressing these concerns.

Procedural History

• District Court, Doña Ana County, presided by Judge Fernando R. Macias: The district court entered a judgment and sentence over the Defendant's objections without holding a hearing on the form of the judgment.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court lacked authority to enter the judgment without holding a hearing on his objections, as required by local rules. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the judgment misstated the law regarding his potential fugitive status and improperly predetermined this status.
• Appellee (State): Did not oppose the appellate court's proposed remedy to reverse and remand for a hearing on the form of the judgment. The State deferred addressing the Defendant's arguments about fugitive status to the remand hearing.

Legal Issues

• Did the district court err by entering the judgment and sentence without holding a hearing on the Defendant's objections, as required by local rules?
• Should the issues regarding the Defendant's fugitive status be addressed on remand?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a presentment hearing on the form of the judgment and sentence.

Reasons

Per Sutin J. (Wechsler and Vanzi JJ. concurring):

The Court of Appeals found that the district court violated the mandatory language of local rule LR3-408(D) NMRA, which requires either the signatures of all counsel or a hearing on the form of the judgment before it can be signed and entered. The Defendant's counsel had explicitly requested a hearing and filed written objections, but the district court failed to comply with the rule. The appellate court determined that this procedural error warranted reversal and remand for a hearing.

The Court also noted that the State agreed with the proposed remedy and deferred addressing the Defendant's arguments about fugitive status to the remand hearing. The appellate court concurred that these issues should be resolved during the remand proceedings.