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 charged with forgery and later with being an accessory to second-degree murder, burglary, tampering with evidence, and harboring a felon. She was placed under strict house arrest with electronic monitoring and other restrictions as part of her release conditions. The Defendant complied with these conditions for nearly two years before her sentencing (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court, September 13, 2001: Approved the Defendant's guilty plea agreement and deferred disposition of her case pending the resolution of the homicide/burglary case (para 4).
• District Court, May 23, 2003: Sentenced the Defendant to a total prison term of twelve years and six months, suspending four years and six months, resulting in an eight-year prison sentence. The court granted her presentence confinement credit for only 340 days, half of the time she spent under house arrest (paras 5, 15).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that her house arrest under electronic monitoring constituted "official confinement" and that she was entitled to full presentence confinement credit for the entire period of her house arrest (paras 5-6).
• State-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant's house arrest was not part of a "judicially approved community custody release program" and therefore did not qualify for full presentence confinement credit. The State also argued that the Defendant's sentence should be reconsidered entirely on remand (paras 9, 14).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's house arrest under electronic monitoring constituted "official confinement" entitling her to full presentence confinement credit.
• Whether the district court could reconsider the Defendant's entire sentence on remand.

Disposition

• The Defendant's sentence was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to grant her full presentence confinement credit for the time spent under house arrest (para 20).

Reasons

Per Vigil J. (Bustamante CJ and Pickard J. concurring):

• The court applied the two-part test from State v. Fellhauer to determine whether the Defendant's house arrest constituted "official confinement." The first prong was satisfied as the conditions of her house arrest imposed significant limitations on her freedom of movement (paras 6-7).
• The second prong was also satisfied because the Defendant was subject to prosecution for escape under NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-8.1, which includes escape from an electronic monitoring program. The court rejected the district court's interpretation that a "judicially approved community custody release program" required a formal, county-wide system, finding that the Defendant's release was judicially approved and subject to defined procedures (paras 8-13).
• The court held that the Defendant was entitled to full presentence confinement credit as both prongs of the Fellhauer test were met (para 13).
• On the issue of remand, the court determined that the district court's authority was limited to correcting the presentence confinement credit and could not reconsider the Defendant's entire sentence. The court emphasized that the underlying eight-year sentence was valid and that increasing it would violate the Defendant's double jeopardy protections (paras 14-19).