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 pled guilty to two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and one count of issuing a worthless check. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, which were suspended, and she was placed on probation with conditions, including participation in a drug rehabilitation program. The Defendant violated her probation by leaving the program and was later arrested after more than a year. The trial court denied her credit for the time between her departure from the program and her arrest, finding her to be a fugitive (paras 3-6).
Procedural History
- Trial Court: Found the Defendant violated probation, revoked it, and reimposed probation with conditions. Denied credit for the period during which the Defendant was deemed a fugitive (paras 1, 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred in denying her credit for the time served on probation, as the finding of her fugitive status was not supported by sufficient evidence (paras 1, 7, 15).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the trial court properly determined the Defendant was a fugitive and denied credit accordingly. Alternatively, argued that the issue of credit could be relitigated on remand (paras 7, 19-20).
Legal Issues
- Was the trial court's finding that the Defendant was a fugitive during the relevant period supported by sufficient evidence?
- What is the appropriate remedy if the trial court's finding of fugitive status was erroneous?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals held that the trial court's finding of the Defendant's fugitive status was not supported by sufficient evidence and remanded the case for a hearing on the issue of credit and an amended judgment (paras 2, 21).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Pickard J. concurring):
The trial court's determination that the Defendant was a fugitive was not supported by sufficient evidence. The state failed to show that it made reasonable efforts to serve the arrest warrant or that such efforts would have been unsuccessful. A mere lack of service does not establish fugitive status (paras 9-16).
The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that she should automatically receive credit for the disputed period, as the issue of credit could be relitigated on remand. Double jeopardy principles do not bar reconsideration of sentencing issues, including credit for time served (paras 18-20). The case was remanded for a hearing to determine the proper credit and whether the probationary term in one of the cases had expired before revocation (para 21).
Special Concurrence by Hartz J.:
Hartz J. agreed with the result but emphasized that the Defendant did not have a fair opportunity to challenge the denial of credit at the trial level. The issue of fugitive status was not clearly raised during the revocation hearing, and the Defendant was not adequately notified that it would be considered. On this basis, the Defendant could raise the issue for the first time on appeal. Hartz J. cautioned against allowing defendants to withhold challenges for tactical reasons but found no such concern in this case (paras 23-31).