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

A delinquency petition was filed against the child in March 1986 for shoplifting. In October 1986, the child was placed on probation for up to two years, with conditions including regular school attendance and incarceration for truancy or suspension. In May 1988, a petition to revoke probation was filed due to truancy. The child admitted to the allegations, and in December 1988, the children's court committed the child to the New Mexico Boys' School for up to two years (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• Children's Court, October 1986: The child was placed on probation for up to two years with conditions, including incarceration for truancy or suspension (para 3).
• Children's Court, July 18, 1988: A dispositional hearing was held after a petition to revoke probation was filed in May 1988. The child admitted to violating probation, and further action was deferred for 60 days (para 12).
• Children's Court, September 19, 1988: The court deferred disposition and committed the child to the Corrections Department for diagnostic evaluation (para 13).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Child): Argued that the original probation order was invalid due to unauthorized incarceration conditions and that revoking probation for truancy violated double jeopardy. Additionally, claimed the children's court lacked jurisdiction due to expired time limits for adjudication and probation (paras 1, 5, 10, 13).
• Respondent (State): Conceded that the self-executing incarceration condition was invalid but argued it was severable from the probation order. Asserted that there was no double jeopardy violation as the self-executing provision was not enforced. Maintained that the court had jurisdiction as proceedings were timely (paras 6-9, 10-14).

Legal Issues

• Was the original probation order, including the self-executing incarceration condition, valid?
• Did revoking the child's probation for truancy violate the prohibition against double jeopardy?
• Did the children's court lack jurisdiction to revoke probation due to expired time limits for adjudication and probation?

Disposition

• The court affirmed the children's court's order committing the child to the New Mexico Boys' School for up to two years (para 15).

Reasons

Per Alarid J. (Bivins C.J. and Apodaca J. concurring):

• Validity of Probation Order: The court found the self-executing incarceration condition invalid as it circumvented statutory procedural requirements. However, the condition was severable, leaving the rest of the probation order, including the requirement to attend school, valid (paras 5-9).
• Double Jeopardy: The court held that double jeopardy was not violated as there was no evidence the self-executing provision was enforced or that the child was punished twice for the same act of truancy. The mere possibility of double punishment does not constitute a violation (paras 10-11).
• Jurisdiction and Timeliness: The court determined that the adjudicatory hearing and subsequent proceedings were conducted within the required time limits. The deferral of disposition and commitment for diagnostic evaluation occurred within the original probationary period, granting the court jurisdiction to commit the child to the Boys' School (paras 12-14).