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 sentenced to a term of imprisonment without eligibility for good time credit. The Defendant challenged the legality of this sentence, arguing that it violated principles established in Apprendi v. New Jersey, Blakely v. Washington, and United States v. Booker.
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment without good time credit.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the sentence was illegal because the denial of good time credit constituted an increase in the sentence, violating the principles established in Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker. In response to the court's notice of proposed disposition, the Defendant appeared to concede that the denial of good time credit was not an increase in the sentence but raised new arguments challenging the legality of the sentence.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the denial of good time credit constitutes an illegal increase in the Defendant's sentence.
- Whether the Defendant's new arguments challenging the legality of the sentence can be considered without a motion to amend the docketing statement.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's sentence.
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Fry C.J. and Kennedy J. concurring):
The Court held that the denial of good time credit does not constitute an increase in the Defendant's sentence and, therefore, does not violate the principles established in Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker. The Defendant's response to the court's notice of proposed disposition appeared to concede this point.
The Court noted that the Defendant raised new arguments challenging the legality of the sentence in the response to the notice of proposed disposition. However, these arguments required a motion to amend the docketing statement, which was not filed. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with procedural rules, including the requirement to file a motion to amend when raising new issues.
The Court also referenced State v. Wyman as controlling authority on the issues raised by the Defendant and declined to reconsider that precedent. The Court urged counsel to adhere to the Rules of Appellate Procedure in future cases.