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 driving while intoxicated (DWI), first offense, pursuant to a plea agreement. The sentencing order included a provision requiring the Defendant to pay $7,255.95 in restitution. The Defendant contested the imposition of restitution, arguing it was not authorized and violated his due process rights.

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court: The Defendant pled guilty to DWI under a plea agreement and was sentenced to pay $7,255.95 in restitution as part of a deferred sentence with probation. The Defendant's objections to restitution were rejected.
• District Court: The Defendant appealed the restitution order, and the District Court affirmed the Metropolitan Court's decision.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the restitution order was unauthorized under the applicable statutes, violated due process, and was based on insufficient evidence. The Defendant also contended that his ability to pay was not adequately considered.
• Respondent (State): Asserted that the restitution order was authorized under general statutory provisions for probation conditions and that the Defendant waived his right to appeal restitution by agreeing to a plea deal that contemplated restitution. The State also argued that the Defendant failed to present evidence of inability to pay or to challenge the evidence supporting the restitution amount.

Legal Issues

• Did the Defendant waive his right to appeal the restitution order by entering into a plea agreement?
• Was the restitution order statutorily authorized?
• Did the imposition of restitution violate the Defendant's due process rights?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the restitution order.

Reasons

Per Garcia J. (Fry CJ and Wechsler J. concurring):

• Waiver of Appeal: The Court held that the Defendant did not waive his right to appeal the restitution order. The plea agreement and the Metropolitan Court's comments left the issue of restitution open for further determination, making it reasonable for the Defendant to challenge the restitution component.

• Statutory Authorization: The Court found that restitution was authorized under NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-6, which allows restitution as a condition of probation. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that restitution was limited to offenses under the Criminal Code, noting that the DWI offense fell under the Motor Vehicle Code and that restitution served rehabilitative purposes.

• Due Process: The Court addressed the Defendant's due process claims:

  • The argument that the restitution recipient was not a victim was not raised at the trial level and was therefore not properly before the Court.
  • The evidence supporting the restitution amount was deemed sufficient, as the Defendant had an opportunity to challenge it but failed to present controverting evidence.
  • The Defendant's claim of inability to pay was unsupported by evidence, and the presentence report, which was available to the Defendant, provided sufficient information for the Metropolitan Court to assess his ability to pay.

• The Court concluded that the restitution order was lawful and did not violate the Defendant's rights.