STATE v. VILLEGAS, 149. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Number: innmco20150316330
Visitors: 2
Filed: Feb. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 24, 2015
Summary: This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. MEMORANDUM OPINION BUSTAMANTE , Judge . {1} Defendant contends that he received an ille
Summary: This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. MEMORANDUM OPINION BUSTAMANTE , Judge . {1} Defendant contends that he received an illeg..
More
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
{1} Defendant contends that he received an illegal sentence when, following a probation violation, the trial court did not credit him with the time he served while incarcerated on his original sentence. [DS 5] Our notice agreed with Defendant and proposed to reverse and remand for resentencing.
{2} The State has responded to our notice, indicating that the State does not oppose our proposed disposition. [MIO 2] Additionally, we note that the State suggests that Defendant is entitled to 365 days of credit, as opposed to 364 days, as provided in our notice. [MIO 2; DS 5; CN 2]
{3} Accordingly, for the reasons detailed in our notice and discussed above, we reverse and remand to the district court for resentencing.
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, concurs.
Source: Leagle
