State v. Nieto, 303 P.3d 855

Defendant NIETO pled guilty to aggravated battery with a deadly weapon after 103 days of pre-trial custody.
District court sentenced three years’ imprisonment with discretionary suspension and an order of supervised probation for up to five years.
Judgment credited pre-sentence confinement of 103 days to potential future incarceration, not to probation.
NIETO argued §31-20-12 requires credit against any sentence finally imposed, including probation, if confinement occurred before conviction.
State argued pre-sentence confinement credit applies only to incarceration and not to a probated sentence.
Court held district court may impose up to five years of probation and pre-sentence confinement credit need not reduce probation duration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pre-sentence confinement credit reduces probation duration	State: credit applies only to incarceration, not probation	Nieto: credit should reduce probation length under §31-20-12	Credit not required to reduce probation; district court may set 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; probationary authority independent of incarceration term)
State v. Lucero, 142 N.M. 102, 163 P.3d 489 (NMSC 2007) (statutes harmonized; pre-sentence credit not mandated against probation)
State v. Rowell, 121 N.M. 111, 908 P.2d 1379 (1995) (statutory interpretation; de novo review; legislative intent)
State v. Marquez, 145 N.M. 1, 193 P.3d 548 (NMSC 2008) (statutes read in harmony; probation and incarceration distinction)
State v. Fellhauer, 123 N.M. 476, 943 P.2d 123 (NMCA 1997) (statutory interpretation; relations of probation and confinement)
State v. Martinez, 126 N.M. 39, 966 P.2d 747 (NMSC 1998) (interpretation of legislative language; statutory context)