State v. French, 495 P.3d 1198

On Sept. 8, 2017 Justin French led police on a vehicle chase, fled on foot, was found in a shed, and methamphetamine was discovered on his person. He was charged with meth possession, aggravated fleeing, and resisting/obstructing an officer.
At the time of arrest French was on probation in two prior cases (PV-1 and PV-2); the State had petitioned to revoke probation in PV-1 before Sept. 8 and filed petitions (and amended PV-1) after the arrest alleging violations tied to the instant conduct.
A bench warrant/no-bond hold from the earlier probation matters resulted in French being booked on Sept. 8; a stipulated pretrial detention order likewise kept him without bond on the new charges.
On Dec. 15, 2017 the district court revoked probation in PV-1 (not based on the Sept. 8 conduct) and in PV-2 (based on the Sept. 8 conduct). French remained in custody until his conviction on July 31, 2018; at that time the court amended conditions so he would begin accruing presentence credit.
At sentencing (Sept. 25, 2018) the district court imposed an aggregate sentence and awarded only 90 days of presentence confinement credit; French appealed, arguing the court erred in credit calculation and that his two convictions for fleeing and resisting violated double jeopardy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether French is entitled to presentence confinement credit for time he was detained on probation violations that overlapped his arrest on the instant charges	State: credit is not due for confinement that coincided with the unexpired term/previous case confinement	French: confinement was caused by the new charges (probation revocation was triggered by the instant conduct), so Section 31-20-12 credit is required	Court: reversed; confinement was related to the instant charges under Facteau/Orona factors and French is entitled to additional presentence credit (293 days), credited once against the aggregate sentence
Whether convictions for aggravated fleeing and resisting/obstructing violate double jeopardy	State conceded the convictions violate double jeopardy (and urged vacatur of the lesser)	French: the two convictions arise from a unitary course of conduct and cannot both stand	Court: accepted concession; vacated the resisting/obstructing conviction as a lesser-included offense and retained aggravated fleeing

State v. Facteau, 109 N.M. 748, 790 P.2d 1029 (1990) (discusses when confinement is not "presentence" and relation of prior confinement to new charges)
State v. Orona, 98 N.M. 668, 651 P.2d 1312 (1982) (factors for testing whether confinement is related to subsequent charges)
State v. Romero, 132 N.M. 745, 55 P.3d 441 (2002) (Section 31-20-12 requires awarding presentence confinement credit when confinement relates to the conviction)
State v. Ramzy, 98 N.M. 436, 649 P.2d 504 (1982) (subsequent charges that cause revocation of bond provide sufficient connection for presentence credit)
State v. Miranda, 108 N.M. 789, 779 P.2d 976 (1989) (presentence confinement need not be exclusively related to the charged offense to warrant credit)
State v. Padilla, 140 N.M. 333, 142 P.3d 921 (2006) (double-description analysis; resisting/obstructing is a lesser-included offense of aggravated fleeing when the conduct is unitary)