State v. Nieto, 2013 NMCA 065

Defendant pled guilty to aggravated battery with a deadly weapon; district court suspended 3-year sentence and imposed 3 years of supervised probation.
Defendant spent 103 days in pre-sentence confinement after the offense and before sentencing.
District court stated that credit for pre-sentence confinement would apply if Defendant were imprisoned during the probation term.
Defendant argued pre-sentence confinement credit should reduce the length of probation, treating probation as the sentence imposed.
State argued pre-sentence confinement credit applies only to incarceration, not to probation; the court declined to apply credit to the probation term.
Defendant appeals, challenging the length of probation and the court’s interpretation of credit against probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pre-sentence confinement credit reduces probation length	State argues credit applies only to sentences of incarceration.	Defendant contends credit should reduce probation length.	Pre-sentence credit need not reduce probation; court may impose up to five years of probation.

State v. Encinias, 104 N.M. 740, 726 P.2d 1174 (Ct. App. 1986) (probation up to five years; rehabilitation purposes)
State v. Lucero, 142 N.M. 102, 163 P.3d 489 (2007-NMSC-041) (read statutes harmoniously; probation limits exist)
State v. Rowell, 121 N.M. 111, 908 P.2d 1379 (1995) (statutory interpretation framework)
State v. Martinez, 126 N.M. 39, 966 P.2d 747 (1998-NMSC-023) (statutory language governing sentencing)
State v. Fellhauer, 123 N.M. 476, 943 P.2d 123 (1997-NMCA-064) (statutes concerning probation and confinement alignment)
State v. Marquez, 145 N.M. 1, 193 P.3d 548 (2008-NMSC-055) (read statutes governing probation limits together)
State v. Donaldson, 100 N.M. 111, 666 P.2d 1258 (Ct. App. 1983) (rehabilitation goals of probation)
Encinias, 104 N.M. 740, 726 P.2d 1174 (Ct. App. 1986) (probation term up to five years; district court discretion)