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, after being sentenced to the Department of Corrections, failed to return to the county jail following a furlough. The Defendant argued that he was not guilty of any crime because he had already been sentenced to the Department of Corrections and, alternatively, that the proper charge should have been escape from jail, a fourth-degree felony, rather than escape from the penitentiary, a second-degree felony.

Procedural History

• District Court, Colfax County: The Defendant was convicted of escape from the penitentiary under NMSA 1978, § 30-22-9 (1963) and sentenced accordingly.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that he was not guilty of any crime because he had been sentenced to the Department of Corrections and was no longer under the jurisdiction of the county jail. Alternatively, he contended that if a crime was committed, the correct charge was escape from jail under NMSA 1978, § 30-22-8 (1963), a lesser offense.
• State-Appellee: Agreed with the proposed disposition to reverse the conviction for escape from the penitentiary but requested that the Court of Appeals remand the case to the district court to enter a guilty verdict and sentence the Defendant for escape from jail instead.

Legal Issues

• Was the Defendant guilty of escape from the penitentiary under NMSA 1978, § 30-22-9 (1963)?
• Could the Court of Appeals convict the Defendant of escape from jail under NMSA 1978, § 30-22-8 (1963) on appeal?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction for escape from the penitentiary and remanded the case to the district court to vacate the conviction.

Reasons

Per Roderick T. Kennedy J. (Michael E. Vigil and Timothy L. Garcia JJ. concurring):

The Court held that the Defendant could not be convicted of escape from the penitentiary because he was not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections at the time of the alleged escape. The Court declined the State's request to convict the Defendant of escape from jail on appeal, citing State v. Villa, which prohibits appellate courts from convicting a defendant of a charge that was not pursued or defended at trial. The Court emphasized that this was not a mere re-sentencing issue but a matter of providing adequate notice to the Defendant of the charges against him. The Court remanded the case to the district court to vacate the conviction.