State v. Aqui

RIORDAN, C.J., FEDERICI, J., us in the question remains before One case, appropri- this an however: is present cur. the issuance of an circumstance for

ate SOSA, Justice, specially Senior concur- not, it is extraordinary We hold that writ? ring. writ issued in this that the alternative quashed. case should be J., WALTERS, concurring only. in result Although is vested with a this Court SOSA, Justice, specially Senior concur- superintending control over all power of ring. courts, VI, N.M. Const. art. Section inferior holding I in the Concur this is not a 3, reluctantly. it most we have invoked proper for the matter issuance of an alter- Anaya Scarborough, rel. v. See State ex However, I native writ. do not concur 702, 706, (1966). 410 P.2d 75 N.M. power Aqui the reaffirmance of State v. because determined that our will be We have only remedy by appeal Opinion exercised where I feel the Court of substantially inadequate, wholly or properly held that under the circumstances necessary prevent irreparable where it is Aqui, time credit should State v. mischief, exception great, extraordinary or equal protection under both the be awarded delays or hardship, costly unusual bur al process and due clauses both the New expense. dens of ex rel. DuBois v. State Mexico and the United States Constitu- 575, 577, Ryan, 85 N.M. 514 P.2d 853 tions. (1973); Anaya ex rel. v. State Scarbor Therefore, I only. concur in this result N.M. at 410 P.2d at 734. The ough, 75 Justice, Walters, specially concurring. power superintending control will not be agree appeal. Baca v. I with Senior Justice Sosa and used as a substitute 376, 378, Burks, solely in the result. The writ was concur Medler, (1970); Harvey ex rel. State improvidently issued and should be (1914). 142 P. quashed. case, present the State filed and voluntarily appeal then withdrew these circum-

district court’s order. Under

stances, unwilling accept we are argument remedy by appeal that its

State’s Further- inadequate or unavailable. P.2d 771 more, that the exercise of we do not believe Mexico, Petitioner, of New STATE superintending control is nec- power our irreparable essary prevent case to this Lee, AQUI, Kajun Phillip mischief, hardship, great or unusual bur- A. Joe a/k/a Gobel, Sena, expense. public inter- Greg delay dens of Bonita Marie a/k/a of our orderly est in the administration Boyd, Bonita Ma- Maria Bonita a/k/a justice system has been served Boyed, criminal Boyd, Elain Bernice ria a/k/a Aqui our decision Simpson, Katherine Ann a/k/a a/k/a good time credits for time award of Gobel, Caroline Bernice Maria a/k/a confinement is not within Mitchell, Mitchell, Carolyn a/k/a a/k/a sentencing judge. authority of the Schanabel, Respondents. Bonita reasons, do not foregoing we For the No. 16313. of this case that the circumstances believe Mexico. of New Supreme power super- for an exercise of our call therefore intending control. The writ is 24, 1986. June writ, denied, having the alternative granted, hereby dis- improvidently been

charged.

IT IS ORDERED. SO Bardacke, Gen., Atty. H.

Paul Charles Gen., Fe, Rennick, Atty. Asst. Santa petitioner. Defender, Robins,

Jacquelyn Public Chief Defender, Lynne Fagan, Appellate Sheila Fe, Lewis, Defender, Appellate Asst. Santa respondents. OPINION STOWERS, Justice. granted of certiorari to

This Court a writ Appeals decision man- review the Court awarding dating the time credits peri- against sentence to defendants for the confinement in the Bernalillo od of their trial, prior County Detention Center sentencing. The district judgment, defendants’ motions for court denied grounds on the that it lacked authority grant them. After jurisdictional question, resolving a granting that the Appeals held presentence confine- good time credits for constitutionally required. nowWe ment is decision. the Court reverse following issues: presents the This case jurisdic- (Repl.Pamp.1981). Each defendant (1) court have there- Does the district 57.1 Crim.P.Rule filed a Rule 57.1 motion for tion under NMSA after correction modify sentence, sen- (Repl.Pamp.1985),to correct seeking or modification of in ad- giv- by ordering that defendants tences period dition time credits for the against their sen- good time credits en presentence confinement. In each his case they spent presen- tences for motion, finding denied the the district court tence confinement? statutory authority grant that it lacked appealed, such credits. Defendants (2) statutory of authoriza- In the absence motion, upon Appeals the Court of credits, protec- do the for such tion cases for consolidated these three review. process clauses of the New and due tion constitutions, and United States Mexico Const, Const, II, 18; N.M. art. U.S. § Rule 57.1. I. Jurisdiction Under XIV, compel granting of amend. § Appeals Because the of has Court good credits to defendants for the jurisdiction appeals postconvic of direct of confinement, presentence periods of their 57.1, only tion remedies under Rule and sentenced are persons where convicted characterized their motions for defendants eligible good time credits as motions for the correc and coun- served in correctional institutions tion or modification of sentence under Rule ty jails pursuant to NMSA Sections 57.1(a). part, provides that rule relevant 33-2-34, 33-3-9, (Repl.Pamp. and 33-8-14 may correct an district court “[t]he Cum.Supp.1985)? 1983 & any may illegal sentence at time and cor hold, first, granting of We that the illegal imposed rect a sentence an man matter for time credits is an administrative [thirty days after the sen ner within Department county or the the Corrections 57.1(a). imposed].” tence is Crim.P.R. administrator, and that jail sheriff or Rule Appeals held that because The Court of give juris- court 57.1 does not the district “illegal had not received these defendants to entertain a motion for diction sentences,” eligible for modi- they were not hold, second, that the statu- credits. We “at time.” Crim. fication of sentence tory which these defendants scheme under 57.1(a). dismissed the It therefore P.R. peri- good time credits for the were denied Gobel, whose motion appeal of defendant does ods of their timely filed court had not been the district guarantees of the constitutional not offend sentencing. Holding thirty days of within process law. equal protection and due of jurisdiction did have that the district court Appeals of therefore reverse the Court We timely motions of defendants to hear the decision, and affirm the district court’s de- Sena, Appeals enter- Aqui and nial of these motions. merits. appeals on the tained their cases, Aqui, separate In three Sena, arrested on various and Gobel were agree the Court of We with charges, and bond was set as criminal bail defendants, unambig received who In each case the condition of release. a limits authorized uous sentences within bail, and there- failed to make defendant statutes, cannot seek sentencing by our prior trial in the Ber- fore was detained under “illegal sentences” correction Each de- County nalillo Detention Center. Harris, 101 57.1(a). See State Rule guilty pursuant to ultimately pled fendant (Ct. 12, 14-15, 627-28 agreement, and re- plea disposition disagree the Court with App.1984). We the district court mained in until detention the defend that two of Appeals implication judgment entered and sentence. 57.1(a), seek, correc Rule ants can “illegal in an imposed of sentences tion gave each defendant The district court allege procedural manner,” they do not period against his sentence for sentencing the dis confinement, deficiencies as is re- trict court. Section 31-20-12 quired under NMSA mandatory agree. credits under We cannot

Unlike McGinnis does con- here, 31-20-12, trol and under New the deduction that decision Section Mexico’s scheme withstands de- sentence time credits from an inmate’s equal protection challenge. fendants’ Fur- not to the discretionary matter entrusted thermore, of Appeals the Court reliance courts to the administrators but process upon inappro- due considerations is county jails. Department or the Corrections priate, unconvincing, unnecessary 33-2-34, 33-3-9, 33-8-14; gen see See §§ hold, appeal. the resolution of this We to 33-10-2 erally NMSA 33-1-1 §§ therefore, good time that New Mexico’s Cum.Supp.1985). (Repl.Pamp.1983 & credit scheme does not violate the constitu- computation time credits is exclu rights tional of these defendants. sively responsibility, administrative bearing upon have no such deductions Equal a. Protection of the Laws. validity original imposed by sentence the district court. Drew United 33-2-34(A) provides Subsection Cf. States, (9th Cir.1957) (federal 248 F.2d 75 confined in inmate the “[a]ny * * * law). claims of entitlement to may Defendants’ not be awarded a deduction of challenge time therefore the good days’ good credits more than time ten meritorious * * * good than month per execution of their sentences rather based on conduct themselves, provided disobeys inmate an and cannot be that an who the sentences ** * 57.1(a) perform re- order to labor shall not for cor addressed Rule motions * * good ceive Sec- meritorious time illegal of of sentences rection sentences or provides “[ejvery tion 33-8-14 that inmate imposed illegal manner. in an United Cf. * ** engaged confined and in enter- an (5th Brown, 753 455 Cir. F.2d States prise program shall be awarded [not 1985); Giddings, 740 F.2d United States good twenty days’] more than industrial (9th Cir.1984); States, 770 Lee v. United conduct, per time month based on work (9th Cir.1968)(discussing F.2d fed * * responsibilities performance and regarding presentence law for eral credits Furthermore, 33-2-34(A) pro- Subsection confinement). engaged that in an any vides inmate enterprise “ap- program engaged but II. Claim for Good Time Constitutional proved programs perform- or educational Credits. facility may receive an ing support services case, days Reaching the merits of the the deduction not exceed five additional ** distinguished per Mexi- Appeals good of New time month Court meritorious addition, good performed from inmate who has co’s scheme of time credits the may be “exceptionally meritorious upheld service” good New York time credit law good eligible lump for sum time award protection challenge in against 33-2-34(B). Pursuant under Subsection 93 S.Ct. Royster, U.S. McGinnis v. mandate, De- the its Corrections court, (1973). The 35 L.Ed.2d 282 regu- promulgated rules and partment has however, analyze failed to whether New awarding the forfeiture lations the and good statutory and administrative Mexico’s good categories of time credits. of various comports with the con- time credit scheme equal protection of of guarantee stitutional “any provides that 33-3-9 Subsection Instead, relying the laws. on Bearden [may county jail imprisoned in the person Georgia, U.S. 103 S.Ct. from the granted] of time a deduction be (1983), the good L.Ed.2d behavior sentence term his *” * * process approach jail was held a due sheriff administrator the order, to estab- “fundamental who is authorized county, and concluded that of the good time or to accrual defendants be lish rules for the fairness” demanded the of the approval with the periods grant deductions good given time credits for may committing Such deductions judge. presentence confinement. one-third the term of the and exceed cation vocational skills of inmates prisoner’s through productive 33-3-9. sentence. involvement in enter- § prises public and works of benefit to state Legislature Although has authorized agencies public and local bodies and to min- Department county the Corrections imize inmate idleness.” NMSA 33- § jail administrators to award sheriffs and (Repl.Pamp.1983). equipped 8-3 It has credits to inmates convicted and time Department facilities Corrections institutions, respective in their confined purpose, sought serve this and has to effec- awarding not to authorize the has chosen policy by requiring tuate its all inmates to persons credits to detained in time labor, perform NMSA 33-8-4 § trial, conviction, county jails prior to (Repl.Pamp.1983), by mandating industrial sentencing. Legislature Because deductions, 33-8-14, § under Section 31-20-12 that has mandated forbidding awarding of meritorious presentence given detainees good time credits to any inmate who diso- final against their sentences for labor, beys perform an order to such confinement, spent in defend- 33-2-34(A). § argue ants effect have served purpose guides portion of sentences A similar the treatment ineligible prisoners confinement to earn of convicted sentenced jails. may county Defendants have to credits. therefore fined Pursuant spend (Cum.Supp.1985), county more time in than would 33-3-19 § compel persons sentencing, jail not confined who can until sheriffs administrators through- eligible prisoners public projects to work on those imprisonment. statutory out The pay without This work remuneration. granting good time may scheme draws a distinction between the be considered in prisoners prior “good treatment of detained to credits under Section 33-3-9 for be- industry.” sentencing and those not confined until af- havior and which, sentencing defendants ar- ter good time in the correc- All awards both gue, equal protection violates the of the jails, county institutions and the tional against persons un- laws and discriminates therefore, willing- predicated upon are able to afford bail. prisoner perform labor as ness of the to law, upon as his argument rejected by required was the Unit well as This Furthermore, McGinnis, the statutes Supreme ed Court in conduct. States contemplate record- systematic reject Despite allegations regulations it here. we prisoner’s and rehabili- against ing de of each conduct our statutes discriminate that the ac- performance purposes of they indigent and un fendants because are tation good time credits. bond, and forfeiture of post to defendants do not crual able bail hand, persons presen- held scrutiny” “strict of a classifi the other contend that On presumed innocent upon a is in confinement are “suspect class” tence cation based compelled work. While in Harper are not to Virginia here. State order See v. Elections, their conduct are instances records of 86 S.Ct. some

Board 383 U.S. of maintained, record-keeping statutory 1079, 16 (1966); Loving L.Ed.2d 169 v. Vir are minimal. See requirements L.Ed.2d ginia, 388 U.S. S.Ct. (Cum.Supp.1985). Therefore, only (1967). “inquire 33-3-7 we § challenged rational distinction whether short, distinction it is clear that the legitimate, ly furthers some articulated treatment draw between the statutes our McGinnis, at purpose.” 410 U.S. state sentenced detainees and presentence of it 1059. conclude that 93 S.Ct. at We pur- state an articulated reflects prisoners does. industry, and rehabilitation and pose of legitimate and nonillu- purpose “[tjhe that Legislature has stated not to award sory. It is reasonable Act Industries purpose of the Corrections to presentence confinement rehabilitation, edu- credits time is to enhance the penitentiary presentence good receive presumed innocent and time are detainees who subject county jails sentenced to yet to rehabilita- credits but felons are not therefore not). compulsory require- labor do tion efforts or ments, especially when are held with- lb. Process of Law. Due county jails systematic evaluation out programs. Because lacking rehabilitation Appeals The Court of rested its de justification declining there a rational upon equal protection, upon cision not but presentence credits for award process grounds. Employing due a “flexi circumstances, these it process approach,” due held that the ble statutory New scheme does Mexico’s enjoyed a substantial interest in guarantee of offend the constitutional liberty impaired which was the denial of the law. of See McGin- protection credits, presentence good time while the 270-73, nis, 93 S.Ct. at 1059-61. 410 U.S. interest state had substantial in maintain a ing is bolstered the deci order in the which would Our conclusion Supreme impaired by granting sions United States Court of such majority Therefore, held, courts and of McGinnis credits. the district jurisdictions which have addressed other court must award course, decision, question. this Each means credits as an alternative of achiev scheme, unique but upon rests This, however, ing objectives. the state’s equal protection no court has found Legislature. is a for the The Court matter predi good time credits are violation where completely sup Appeals order is without upon participation cated rehabilitation theory port any previously enunciated programs prisoners and where all convicted process, stand. due and cannot peri time credits for their denied relied upon Bear- . ods of confinement. See held once the Georgia, den v. which (former statute); New York McGinnis probation is state determined that has (Colo. Turman, P.2d People v. sentencing court punishment, suitable 1983); Hunt, 328 So.2d McCormick imprisonment must consider alternatives State, (La.1976); 331 N.W.2d 837 Patino solely probation to an before it revokes due (S.D.1983); Nyborg, 122 Wis.2d inability indigent pay fines probationer’s 765, (Wis.Ct.App.1985). 364 N.W.2d 553 effect, In held or restitution. Texas, (5th But v. 468 F.2d 51 see Pruett enjoyed liberty inter- petitioner that the Cir.1972), part, part, modified aff'd freedom he had est in the conditional Cir.1973), (5th without 470 F.2d 1182 affd only granted, under certain been 802, 118, 94 opinion, 414 U.S. S.Ct. 38 deprived he be of that circumstances could (1973) (equal protection viola L.Ed.2d 39 his solely indigent con- interest because good tion convicted felon denied where dition. ap pending for confinement credits case, present presen- which involves peal); F.Supp. 351 1012 Gilligan, v.White postconvic- than tence confinement rather McGinnis)', (decided to (S.D.Ohio) prior probation, distinguishable tion on release 498, 165 Cal.Rptr. People Sage, 26 Cal.3d v. ways. many The defend- from Bearden 280, (1980) (equal protection 611 P.2d 874 constitutional, statutory, or enjoyed ants no eli detainee/misdemeanant violation where credits, right to administrative gible time credits but granted such credits as had been nor not; scrutiny strict stan detainee/felon is McDon- privilege. See v. matter of Rowe, review); Hampton 88 dard of Wolff 2975, 2963, 539, 557, nell, 94 S.Ct. 418 511, U.S. 352, N.E.2d Ill.App.3d 43 Ill.Dec. 410 (no (1974) constitutional 41 935 L.Ed.2d (1980) intent to (legislative 511 award recognized no had right). They therefore regardless of work or rehabili time credits stake, and the did liberty State at interest tation); Stamps, ex rel. James State right privilege not act revoke (Mo.1978)(en banc) (equal pro S.W.2d Furthermore, when previously enjoyed. felons sentenced tection where violation dismissing court had the the Rule 57.1 motions bail the district of these established defendants is reinstated. duty to indeed the consider opportunity and circumstances and alter defendant’s each IT ORDERED. IS SO securing his attendance at means of native Const, RIORDAN, C.J., FEDERICI, J., II, 13, art. trial. See N.M. U.S. § Const, cur. (prohibition against ex amend. VIII punish bail and cruel and unusual cessive SOSA, J., WALTERS, J., Senior dis- ment); (Repl. Crim.P.R. sent. Cebeda, (bail criteria); State v. Pamp.1985) SOSA, Justice, dissenting. Senior 306, 308, (Ct. 502 P.2d all, agree In I fairness with the Court App.1972). We therefore cannot conclude on this matter and therefore I here were denied that defendants adopt cannot concur. I also the Court of solely indigency. due to time credits Appeals Opinion my as own and set it forth simply implicate present case does not entirety. in its underlay process due concerns that Supreme States Court decision United WALTERS, Justice, dissenting. Bearden. agree majority opinion I cannot with the rights pretrial The constitutional de- adopt opinion I the Court of Wolfish, Bell v. tainees were addressed Appeals my as dissent. 520, 99 60 L.Ed.2d 447 441 U.S. S.Ct. APPENDIX (1979). that, there held in evalu- The Court ating pretrial confinement conditions of MEXICO, OF NEW STATE allegedly deprive liberty detainees of Plaintiff-Appellee, law, process proper without due vs. inquiry is whether those conditions amount LEE; AQUI, PHIL- A. a/k/a KAJUN JOE impermissible punishment of the detain- SENA; LIP and BONITA MA- GREG ee, they are “but an incident of or whether GOBEL, RIE a/k/a MARIA BONITA legitimate governmental pur- [a] BOYD, a/k/a BONITA MARIA 1873; pose.” 441 U.S. at 99 S.Ct. BOYD, a/k/a BERNICE ELAIN Smallwood, also see BOYED, a/k/a KATHERINE ANN (Ct.App.1980). De- SIMPSON, MARIA a/k/a BERNICE process rights have not been fendants’ due GOBEL, a/k/a CAROLINE MITCH- violated. MITCHELL, ELL, a/k/a CAROLYN conclusion, SCHANABEL, Mexico’s we hold that New De- a/k/a BONITA fendants-Appellants. making prisoners eligible scheme for the for awards of (Consolidated) 8857, 8914, 8940 Nos. periods post-sentencing of their confine- APPEALS OF THE IN THE COURT OF Department ment in facilities Correction NEW MEXICO STATE OF jails periods for the county and but not 27, 1986 Feb. county in presentence their THE DISTRICT APPEALS FROM protection jails does not offend the BERNALILLO COURT OF the New process guarantees and due COUNTY and States constitutions. Mexico United Cosgrove, Judge well that the district court does We hold as Burt jurisdiction not have under Crim.P.Rule Thomson, Judge W. Gerard 57.1(a) modify sentences to correct OPINION awarding good HENDLEY, Judge. The de- spent presentence in confinement. in these issue involved Appeals therefore is cision of the Court of The substantive a defendant should is whether reversed, three cases court’s orders and the district remedy filed in the trial court. There are a spent given good-time credit for time in potential number of available remedies to county jail presentence in confinement. prisoners who have claims similar to those substantive also discuss how the issue We brought by these need defendants. We not raised. The motion for consolida- may be in decide this case whether such remedies advisement, tion, previously under taken is appropriate. Apart from motions filed granted. 1978, pursuant to NMSA Crim.P.Rule 57.1 were sentenced. All three defendants (Repl.Pamp.1985), the trial court’s denial of bail, they to make all were unable Because directly appealable. remedies is those not and sentenc- time between arrest spent the Forest, 204, In re giv- All were ing jail. in three defendants Garcia, (1941) (habeas corpus); State v. served, pursuant to credit for this time en (Ct.App.1984) 680 P.2d 613 (Repl.Pamp. Section 31-20-12 NMSA (post-conviction covered motion now 1981). for additional Each filed a motion (Repl.Pamp. NMSA Crim.P.Rule 57 jail. spent time credit 1985) previously and covered NMSA person these was that theory of motions (Repl.Pamp.1984) Section 31-11-6 and during time would be to bail this admitted (Repl.Pamp. NMSA Civ.P.Rule 93 day for each good-time credit to earn able 1980)). pursuant to the in the spent 57.1(a) cor- the trial court to Rule allows sentence, would, accordingly, serve a and illegal time rect an sentence unable to person sentence than a lesser illegal in an imposed a sentence correct period during make bail for reduc- provided within the time manner 33-2-34(A) NMSA Section the case. 57.1(b) sentence. allows the tion of Rule the corrections (Cum.Supp.1985) authorizes within thir- court to a sentence trial reduce credit of department good-time to award cases, days various In these ty events. on days per prisoners, month to based ten imposition only pertinent is the event Although there is a statute good conduct. All contend that the sentences. jail, authorizing good spent for time good- denial of complaint about (Cum.Supp. 33-3-9 Section illegal sentence. credit resulted in an 1985), apply only interpreted to it is Additionally, Aqui contend their and Sena serving jails people sentences imposed in complaint resulted in a sentence being pending trial. detained there people manner, complaint illegal was cases, are undis- of these the facts In each 57.1(b). cognizable Rule otherwise clear conduct puted that defendants had cases, state, relying federal con- on good-time and would be entitled records inapplicable, that Rule 57.1 is tends for time probably applicable, Rule mo- denied each The trial court finement. remedy, proper corpus habeas tion. applicable or not Rule 57 that whether Although the substantive issue is identi- on Rule matter because decisions does not case, cal each procedure Aqui is not. In order to appealable. are not 57 motions and Sena filed their motions for the credit the fed- reliance on the state’s understand thirty days within judgment cases, necessary to understand it is eral sentence. Gobel did not file her motion Fed.R. comparable to Rule 57.1 is that our thirty until after days. habeas federal 35. Both state and Crim.P. procedural aspects We first discuss the exist, post-convic- our remedies corpus jurisdic- cases. We of these do so because 57) (currently Rule provision tion relief presented. tional issues are We must first Section 2255 to 28 comparable U.S.C.S. jurisdiction. determine whether have we provi- has (1977), except that Rule 57 our Gonzales, Rice v. See 79 N.M. 444 barring appeals sion therefrom. Weddle, (1968); State v. P.2d 288 (1967). provi- the agree 423 P.2d 609 we with state that Whether have We the illegal 57.1(a) dealing jurisdiction depends Rule with upon the nature the sion of

353 are, therefore, illegal, unpersuasive. No apply to sentences does not these cases. in support are cited authorities whatsoever federal cases is thrust of the that there Adoption re of these claims. See is a the validity distinction between of the (1984). Doe, 1329 100 676 P.2d N.M. sentence and the way as written it is ad- claims do come Because defendants’ not department. ministered the corrections forth in fed- within the set framework Only type of illegality may former sentences, illegal their eral authorities portion raised on motion under the of Fed. any time under claims cannot be raised 35(a) dealing illegal R.Crim.P. with sen- 57.1(a). Accordingly, we dis- Rule must Carbo, tences. United States v. See 474 her appeal because motion miss Gobel’s (9th Cir.1973); F.2d 698 Drew v. United thirty-day limit. beyond was filed States, (9th Cir.1957). 248 F.2d 75 Stated However, are Aqui’s and Sena’s cases otherwise, there is a distinction between suffi- file their motions challenges They different. did to the sentence itself and chal- thirty-day limit to lenges to way ciently the sentence is advance executed. Gleason, court act within See United v. the trial States 753 F.2d 83 have allowed (8th Moore’s, Cir.1985), Although supra, days. and cases cited thirty therein.

8A R. under Fed.R.Crim.P. Cipes, that motions Practice, Moore’s Federal states (Nov.1985 pleas leniency, Revision) 35(b) essentially HU35.01-.03 are (Supp. 1985), seeking as extensively credit discusses motions Rule 35 and seems treat compares para- it to It under points Section 2255. sentence out motions to reduce ¶ that the portion of Rule 35 dealing (b). also with See graph Id. at 35.02[3][b][v]. illegal (5th States, sentences is directed toward sen F.2d 1101 456 v. Taylor United tences which exceed authority, Cir.1972). Giving defendants sentences which violate double jeopardy, jail in the spent and sentences are internally which contra reduce sentences. would dictory ambiguous. or Motions pursuant cases in these whether We need not decide 35(b) to Rule essentially pleas are for le brought properly seeking credit motion niency. portion 35(a) of Rule dealing portion 57.1(b), or under Rule with imposed sentences in an illegal man im- sentences 57.1(a) dealing with Rule goes ner to sentences which imposed, were Both have the illegal manner. posed for example, without allocution or based on Aqui’s both limit and thirty-day time same erroneous information. Because our Rule timely Ac- filed. were motions and Sena’s 57.1 is substantially the same as Fed.R. ap- of their jurisdiction cordingly, we have (see Crim.P. 35 Committee commentary to substantive conten- peals answer 57.1), Rule interpretations federal of Rule its on merits. tion persuasive. 35 are State v. Weddle. Cf. constitutionally it is The issue is whether Here, claims are directed defendants’ deny these defendants impermissible to themselves or to their to the sentences jail in good-time credit for validity There is no as written. claim Although we presentence confinement. given were unauthorized sentences are recognize the authorities v. Sinyard, the statutes. State See issue, compare People agreement on this (Ct.App.1983). All 675 P.2d (Colo.1983)(en Turman, P.2d v. sentences within the defendants received Hunt, 328 banc); So.2d v. McCormick statutory range, and all ex- State, (La.1976); 331 N.W.2d 837 v. Patino pressly received the credit mandated 122 Wis.2d (S.D.1983); Nyborg, judgments in their Section 31-20-12 (1985), with v.White 364 N.W.2d 553 dou- sentences. Nor is there claim of 1972); (S.D.Ohio F.Supp. 1012 Gilligan, 351 jeopardy were ble or that sentences 498, 165Cal.Rptr. 26 Cal.3d People Sage, inconsistent, ambiguous, internally (1980); State ex rel. claims that tradictory. Defendants’ (Mo. 562 S.W.2d Stamps, James based on unconstitutional sentences are (en banc), persuaded that 1978) we unconstitutionally interpreted statutes and in New pretrial credit to detainees should be entitled to

these defendants Mexico. good-time credit. distinctions, In spite of these we do Royster, on state relies McGinnis The necessary adopt believe that it is to one or 35 L.Ed.2d 282 93 S.Ct. 410 U.S. approaches by another of the utilized the following analy- (1973), those cases its and deciding equal cases the issue on strict challenge involved a to a sis. McGinnis protection grounds. That is because good-time law which denied New York underpinnings doctrinal have McGinnis parole eligibility presen- toward credit been undercut a more recent case decid- conclud- jail confinement. tence ed Supreme the United States Court on challenge equal protection made that the ed an issue similar to this one. The issue using the rational basis judged be should disparity involved in criminal sentences the exist- then stressed test. The Court dispari- where wealth is the reason for the programs rehabilitative ence of serious ty. Wald, See Pretrial Detention and Ul- jail and ruled prison and their absence timate Freedom: A Study, Statistical such, difficulty together with (1964) (poverty N.Y.U.L.Rev. 631 is main behavior, jail justified evaluating prisoners’ detention). pretrial reason for Mexico, in treatment. New disparity ( however, complex of credits for has a set 660, 103 Georgia, 461 U.S. Bearden In addition to the meritorious time served. (1983), 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 held that S.Ct. here, which is good-time credit at issue probation solely revoke a state could not conduct, Section 33-2- given based on indigent probationer’s inabili- because of an (1) 34(A), support service there is: explaining ty pay probation to costs. time, engaged given prisoners which appropriate analysis, the Court stated: education, approved other ed- in vocational following the framework of parties, services, Id.; (2) ucation, facility support or Illinois, 399 U.S. Williams [v. time, given which is based industrial (1970)] and 26 L.Ed.2d 586 S.Ct. being engaged in an enter- prisoners on Short, 401 U.S. 91 S.Ct. Tate [v. Section 33-8- prise program, (1971)], argued have 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (3) extra industrial (Repl.Pamp.1983); equal pro question primarily in terms of time, given prison- based on which is tection, vigorously whether and debate enterprise pro- performance in the ers’ is the scrutiny or rational basis strict Id.; (4) gram, and extra meritorious standard of review. There appropriate time, given exceptional merito- which is has treated the no doubt that the State performing duties of or for rious service differently person who from petitioner with exceptional importance connection imposed fine and pay the did not fail to 33-2-34(B). operations, Section institutional probation. not violate there ore did [sic] Mexico, Thus, the credits for reha- in New whether this differential determine To separate special services are bilitation Equal Protection violates treatment simple good behavior. from credits whether, Clause, one must determine cases ar- the defendants these None of circumstances, a defendant’s what credits for gue are entitled to may considered in the indigent status simple good behavior. anything other than probation. revoke whether to decision it are relying the cases on McGinnis asking substantially similar to This They distinguish- distinguishable. are also process question of directly the due New Mexico able fundamentally when it is whether penitentiary allows officials scheme arbitrary for the State to re unfair good-time credit for prisoners with indigent when an is un probation voke out-of-state con- in federal or analyzed Whether pay the fine. able ability peni- Accordingly, the finement. pro protection or due in terms of tentiary to observe the conduct officials cess, be resolved cannot the issue pro- at the does prisoners pigeonhole easy slogans awarding good- resort basis for not vide a rational concerning Aqui and Sena are The orders requires but rather a careful analysis, are remanded to and cases reversed into such factors as “the nature inquiry trial court determination affected, individual interest they good-time credit to which amount affected, it is which the ration extent to appropriate entry of an entitled legisla the connection between ality of appeal The of Gobel is dismissed. order. purpose, means and the exist tive [and] ORDERED. IT IS SO alternative ence of means for effectuat * * ing purpose v. Il Williams ALARID, J., DONNELLY, C.J., con- linois, at supra, S.Ct. 2031] [90 cur. (Harlan, J., concurring). (Footnotes omitted.)

Defendants established below that spend longer required

will

imprisoned because of their inabilities

afford bail. Because this case involves the same problem longer of incarcera- — indigents tion for was involved in —which Williams, Tate, Bearden, the flexible P.2d process approach due used in is Bearden Mexico, of New ex rel. DEPART- STATE appropriate. Under this approach, the de- SERVICES, MENT OF HUMAN nial good-time credit for Petitioner-Appellee, confinement cannot in- stand. Defendants’ substantial, liberty is terest in and the im- pairment significant. of that interest is AVINGER, Kathy Latham state’s interest the maintenance of Respondent-Appellant. order at the is also substantial. No. 8423. However, requiring good- the state to make for presentence time credit available Mexico. of New way impair finement would in no this inter- 17, 1985. Oct. good-time est. The award of credit to both prisoners categories of is an alternative accomplishing objec-

means of the state’s

tive. ex

As Missouri court ruled Stamps, legit- no

rel. “there is James rewarding only portion reason for

imate comply felons who those [with standard with

conduct credits]. much.” Fair-

Fairness alone demands as process heart due

ness also at the New Mexico Constitution.

clause of the Slayton,

See State approach used (Ct.App.1977). Because the appropriate here.

Bearden solely on

good-time credit is based because, circum- under these

conduct

stances, these simply unfair to treat can differently those who from bail, these defendants we hold that

afford good-time given

must be confinement.

conduct

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Aqui

Court Name: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date Published: Jun 24, 1986

Citation: 721 P.2d 771

Docket Number: 16313

Court Abbreviation: N.M.