State v. Araujo, 35,514

Background

Defendant committed larceny in Lincoln County on or about July 9, 2015, and later entered a guilty plea to that charge on February 19, 2016.
A warrant and $5,000 unsecured bond were issued in the larceny case on September 2, 2015; Defendant had a first appearance in Lincoln County Magistrate Court on September 23, 2015, and signed a release form for "this case only" on the $5,000 unsecured appearance bond.
From August 6, 2015, Defendant was in custody in Eddy County on an unrelated probation-violation matter; he was released from Eddy County on March 16, 2016 and then surrendered to Lincoln County custody for the larceny on March 25, 2016.
The district court awarded Defendant presentence confinement credit for the period beginning September 2, 2015 through parts of 2016 (with some gaps); the State appealed, arguing the credit was excessive because Defendant had been released on unsecured bond in the larceny case while detained on the unrelated probation violation.
The Court of Appeals issued a calendar notice proposing reversal and remand for recalculation of presentence confinement credit; Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition asserting estoppel/judicial-admission, preservation issues, and that sentencing is discretionary.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Defendant was entitled to presentence confinement credit for time he was physically in custody on an unrelated matter while released on an unsecured bond in the larceny case	Credit was improper because Defendant was released on an unsecured bond as to the larceny; custody was due to a separate probation-violation matter	Defendant contended he was held continuously due to the larceny and thus entitled to credit	Court reversed and remanded for recalculation; applied Facteau factors and concluded credit must be limited because Defendant was released on unsecured bond and custody related to a different matter
Whether the prosecutor’s statements during plea amounted to a judicial admission or estoppel entitling Defendant to credit	State denied that its remarks constituted a judicial admission	Defendant argued prosecutor admitted continuous custody for the larceny and he relied on that	Court rejected estoppel/judicial-admission: prosecutor’s statements referred to custody resulting from the unrelated probation violation, not an admission of entitlement to credit
Whether the State preserved its argument below about limiting presentence credit	State argued it did raise the limitation before the district court (urged only three weeks credit)	Defendant claimed the State failed to give notice of its position and preservation was inadequate	Court found the State had argued the limitation at sentencing and preserved the issue
Whether sentencing discretion allows awarding the challenged amount of presentence credit contrary to statute/case law	State maintained statutory and Facteau limits control credit	Defendant relied on district-court sentencing discretion	Court held sentencing discretion does not override statutory entitlement to presentence confinement credit and applied controlling precedent (Facteau)

Key Cases Cited

Hennessy v. Duryea, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (discussing burden in summary calendar cases)
Mondragon v. State, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (requirements for responding to summary calendar notice)
Brothers v. State, 133 N.M. 36, 59 P.3d 1268 (elements of estoppel discussed)
Duran v. State, 126 N.M. 60, 966 P.2d 768 (district-court sentencing discretion principles)
Laguna v. State, 128 N.M. 345, 992 P.2d 896 (abrogation/context for sentencing authority)
Facteau v. State, 109 N.M. 748, 790 P.2d 1029 (establishing test for presentence confinement credit entitlement)
Romero v. State, 132 N.M. 745, 55 P.3d 441 (application of Facteau factors where multiple proceedings are involved)