Court Opinion

ID: 9548465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:03:52.286631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:00.591277
License: Public Domain

WALTERS, Justice, dissenting. I cannot agree with the majority opinion and I adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals as my dissent. APPENDIX STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOE A. AQUI, a/k/a KAJUN LEE; PHILLIP GREG SENA; and BONITA MARIE GOBEL, a/k/a MARIA BONITA BOYD, a/k/a BONITA MARIA BOYD, a/k/a BERNICE ELAIN BOYED, a/k/a KATHERINE ANN SIMPSON, a/k/a BERNICE MARIA GOBEL, a/k/a CAROLINE MITCHELL, a/k/a CAROLYN MITCHELL, a/k/a BONITA SCHANABEL, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 8857, 8914, 8940 (Consolidated) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Feb. 27, 1986 APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Burt Cosgrove, Judge Gerard W. Thomson, Judge OPINION HENDLEY, Judge. The substantive issue involved in these three cases is whether a defendant should be given good-time credit for time spent in the county jail in presentence confinement. We also discuss how the substantive issue may be raised. The motion for consolidation, previously taken under advisement, is granted. All three defendants were sentenced. Because all were unable to make bail, they spent the time between arrest and sentencing in jail. All three defendants were given credit for this time served, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-12 (Repl.Pamp. 1981). Each filed a motion for additional credit for good time spent in jail. The theory of these motions was that a person admitted to bail during this time would be able to earn good-time credit for each day spent in the penitentiary pursuant to the sentence, and would, accordingly, serve a lesser sentence than a person unable to make bail during the presentence period of the case. NMSA 1978, Section 33-2-34(A) (Cum.Supp.1985) authorizes the corrections department to award good-time credit of ten days per month to prisoners, based on good conduct. Although there is a statute authorizing good time for time spent in jail, NMSA 1978, Section 33-3-9 (Cum.Supp. 1985), it is interpreted to apply only to people serving sentences in jails and not to people being detained there pending trial. In each of these cases, the facts are undisputed that defendants had clear conduct records and would be entitled to good-time credit for time spent in presentence confinement. The trial court denied each motion. Although the substantive issue is identical in each case, the procedure is not. Aqui and Sena filed their motions for the credit within thirty days of the judgment and sentence. Gobel did not file her motion until after thirty days. We first discuss the procedural aspects of these cases. We do so because jurisdictional issues are presented. We must first determine whether we have jurisdiction. See Rice v. Gonzales, 79 N.M. 377, 444 P.2d 288 (1968); State v. Weddle, 77 N.M. 417, 423 P.2d 609 (1967). Whether we have jurisdiction depends upon the nature of the remedy filed in the trial court. There are a number of potential remedies available to prisoners who have claims similar to those brought by these defendants. We need not decide in this case whether such remedies are appropriate. Apart from motions filed pursuant to NMSA 1978, Crim.P.Rule 57.1 (Repl.Pamp.1985), the trial court’s denial of those remedies is not directly appealable. In re Forest, 45 N.M. 204, 113 P.2d 582 (1941) (habeas corpus); State v. Garcia, 101 N.M. 232, 680 P.2d 613 (Ct.App.1984) (post-conviction motion now covered by NMSA 1978, Crim.P.Rule 57 (Repl.Pamp. 1985) and previously covered by NMSA 1978, Section 31-11-6 (Repl.Pamp.1984) and NMSA 1978, Civ.P.Rule 93 (Repl.Pamp. 1980)). Rule 57.1(a) allows the trial court to correct an illegal sentence at any time and to correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided for reduction of sentence. Rule 57.1(b) allows the trial court to reduce a sentence within thirty days of various events. In these cases, the only pertinent event is the imposition of the sentences. All defendants contend that their complaint about the denial of good-time credit resulted in an illegal sentence. Additionally, Aqui and Sena contend their complaint resulted in a sentence imposed in an illegal manner, or their complaint was otherwise cognizable under Rule 57.1(b). The state, relying on federal cases, contends that Rule 57.1 is inapplicable, that Rule 57 probably is not applicable, that habeas corpus is the proper remedy, and that whether or not Rule 57 is applicable does not matter because decisions on Rule 57 motions are not appealable. In order to understand the state’s reliance on the federal cases, it is necessary to understand that our Rule 57.1 is comparable to Fed.R. Crim.P. 35. Both state and federal habeas corpus remedies exist, and our post-conviction relief provision (currently Rule 57) is comparable to 28 U.S.C.S. Section 2255 (1977), except that our Rule 57 has a provision barring appeals therefrom. We agree with the state that the provision of Rule 57.1(a) dealing with illegal sentences does not apply to these cases. The thrust of the federal cases is that there is a distinction between the validity of the sentence as written and the way it is administered by the corrections department. Only the former type of illegality may be raised on motion under the portion of Fed. R.Crim.P. 35(a) dealing with illegal sentences. See United States v. Carbo, 474 F.2d 698 (9th Cir.1973); Drew v. United States, 248 F.2d 75 (9th Cir.1957). Stated otherwise, there is a distinction between challenges to the sentence itself and challenges to the way the sentence is executed. See United States v. Gleason, 753 F.2d 83 (8th Cir.1985), and cases cited therein. 8A R. Cipes, Moore’s Federal Practice, HU 35.01-.03 (Nov.1985 Revision) (Supp. 1985), extensively discusses Rule 35 and compares it to Section 2255. It points out that the portion of Rule 35 dealing with illegal sentences is directed toward sentences which exceed statutory authority, sentences which violate double jeopardy, and sentences which are internally contradictory or ambiguous. Motions pursuant to Rule 35(b) are essentially pleas for leniency. The portion of Rule 35(a) dealing with sentences imposed in an illegal manner goes to sentences which were imposed, for example, without allocution or based on erroneous information. Because our Rule 57.1 is substantially the same as Fed.R. Crim.P. 35 (see Committee commentary to Rule 57.1), federal interpretations of Rule 35 are persuasive. Cf. State v. Weddle. Here, defendants’ claims are not directed to the sentences themselves or to their validity as written. There is no claim that the sentences given were unauthorized by the statutes. See State v. Sinyard, 100 N.M. 694, 675 P.2d 426 (Ct.App.1983). All defendants received sentences within the statutory range, and all defendants expressly received the credit mandated by Section 31-20-12 in their judgments and sentences. Nor is there any claim of double jeopardy or that the sentences were internally inconsistent, ambiguous, or contradictory. Defendants’ claims that the sentences are based on unconstitutional or unconstitutionally interpreted statutes and are, therefore, illegal, is unpersuasive. No authorities whatsoever are cited in support of these claims. See In re Adoption of Doe, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (1984). Because defendants’ claims do not come within the framework set forth in the federal authorities for illegal sentences, their claims cannot be raised at any time under Rule 57.1(a). Accordingly, we must dismiss Gobel’s appeal because her motion was filed beyond the thirty-day limit. However, Aqui’s and Sena’s cases are different. They did file their motions sufficiently in advance of the thirty-day limit to have allowed the trial court to act within thirty days. Although Moore’s, supra, states that motions under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) are essentially pleas for leniency, it seems to treat motions seeking credit as motions to reduce sentence under paragraph (b). Id. at ¶ 35.02[3][b][v]. See also Taylor v. United States, 456 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir.1972). Giving defendants credit for good time spent in the jail in presentence confinement would reduce their sentences. We need not decide in these cases whether a motion seeking credit is properly brought under Rule 57.1(b), or under that portion of Rule 57.1(a) dealing with sentences imposed in an illegal manner. Both have the same thirty-day time limit and both Aqui’s and Sena’s motions were timely filed. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction of their appeals and answer their substantive contention on its merits. The issue is whether it is constitutionally impermissible to deny these defendants good-time credit for time spent in jail in presentence confinement. Although we recognize that the authorities are not in agreement on this issue, compare People v. Turman, 659 P.2d 1368 (Colo.1983) (en banc); McCormick v. Hunt, 328 So.2d 140 (La.1976); Patino v. State, 331 N.W.2d 837 (S.D.1983); State v. Nyborg, 122 Wis.2d 765, 364 N.W.2d 553 (1985), with White v. Gilligan, 351 F.Supp. 1012 (S.D.Ohio 1972); People v. Sage, 26 Cal.3d 498, 165 Cal.Rptr. 280, 611 P.2d 874 (1980); State ex rel. James v. Stamps, 562 S.W.2d 354 (Mo. 1978) (en banc), we are persuaded that these defendants should be entitled to good-time credit. The state relies on McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 93 S.Ct. 1055, 35 L.Ed.2d 282 (1973), and those cases following its analysis. McGinnis involved a challenge to a New York law which denied good-time credit toward parole eligibility for presentence jail confinement. The Court concluded that the equal protection challenge made should be judged using the rational basis test. The Court then stressed the existence of serious rehabilitative programs in prison and their absence in jail and ruled that such, together with the difficulty of evaluating prisoners’ jail behavior, justified the disparity in treatment. New Mexico, however, has a complex set of credits for time served. In addition to the meritorious good-time credit at issue here, which is given based on good conduct, Section 33-2-34(A), there is: (1) support service good time, which is given to prisoners engaged in vocational education, other approved education, or facility support services, Id.; (2) industrial good time, which is given based on prisoners being engaged in an enterprise program, NMSA 1978, Section 33-8-14 (Repl.Pamp.1983); (3) extra industrial good time, which is given based on prisoners’ performance in the enterprise program, Id.; and (4) extra meritorious good time, which is given for exceptional meritorious service or for performing duties of exceptional importance in connection with institutional operations, Section 33-2-34(B). Thus, in New Mexico, the credits for rehabilitation and special services are separate from credits for simple good behavior. None of the defendants in these cases argue that they are entitled to credits for anything other than simple good behavior. McGinnis and the cases relying on it are distinguishable. They are also distinguishable in that the New Mexico statutory scheme allows penitentiary officials to credit prisoners with good-time credit for time spent in federal or out-of-state confinement. Accordingly, the ability of penitentiary officials to observe the conduct of prisoners at the penitentiary does not provide a rational basis for not awarding good-time credit to pretrial detainees in New Mexico. In spite of these distinctions, we do not believe that it is necessary to adopt one or another of the approaches utilized by the cases deciding the issue on strict equal protection grounds. That is because the doctrinal underpinnings of McGinnis have been undercut by a more recent case decided by the United States Supreme Court on an issue similar to this one. The issue involved disparity in criminal sentences where wealth is the reason for the disparity. See Wald, Pretrial Detention and Ultimate Freedom: A Statistical Study, 39 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 631 (1964) (poverty is main reason for pretrial detention). ( Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983), held that a state could not revoke probation solely because of an indigent probationer’s inability to pay probation costs. In explaining the appropriate analysis, the Court stated: The parties, following the framework of Williams [v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970)] and Tate [v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971) ], have argued the question primarily in terms of equal protection, and debate vigorously whether strict scrutiny or rational basis is the appropriate standard of review. There is no doubt that the State has treated the petitioner differently from a person who did not fail to pay the imposed fine and there ore [sic] did not violate probation. To determine whether this differential treatment violates the Equal Protection Clause, one must determine whether, and under what circumstances, a defendant’s indigent status may be considered in the decision whether to revoke probation. This is substantially similar to asking directly the due process question of whether and when it is fundamentally unfair or arbitrary for the State to revoke probation when an indigent is unable to pay the fine. Whether analyzed in terms of equal protection or due process, the issue cannot be resolved by resort to easy slogans or pigeonhole analysis, but rather requires a careful inquiry into such factors as “the nature of the individual interest affected, the extent to which it is affected, the rationality of the connection between legislative means and purpose, [and] the existence of alternative means for effectuating the purpose * * Williams v. Illinois, supra, at 260 [90 S.Ct. at 2031] * * * (Harlan, J., concurring). (Footnotes omitted.) Defendants established below that they will be required to spend a longer time imprisoned because of their inabilities to afford bail. Because this case involves the same problem — longer periods of incarceration for indigents — which was involved in Williams, Tate, and Bearden, the flexible due process approach used in Bearden is appropriate. Under this approach, the denial of good-time credit for presentence confinement cannot stand. Defendants’ interest in liberty is substantial, and the impairment of that interest is significant. The state’s interest in the maintenance of order at the penitentiary is also substantial. However, requiring the state to make good-time credit available for presentence confinement would in no way impair this interest. The award of good-time credit to both categories of prisoners is an alternative means of accomplishing the state’s objective. As the Missouri court ruled in State ex rel. James v. Stamps, “there is no legitimate reason for rewarding only a portion of those felons who comply [with good conduct standard with good time credits]. Fairness alone demands as much.” Fairness is also at the heart of the due process clause of the New Mexico Constitution. See State v. Slayton, 90 N.M. 447, 564 P.2d 1329 (Ct.App.1977). The approach used in Bearden is appropriate here. Because the good-time credit is based solely on good conduct and because, under these circumstances, it is simply unfair to treat these defendants differently from those who can afford bail, we hold that these defendants must be given good-time credit for good conduct in presentence confinement. The orders concerning Aqui and Sena are reversed and their cases are remanded to the trial court for determination of the amount of good-time credit to which they are entitled and entry of an appropriate order. The appeal of Gobel is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. DONNELLY, C.J., and ALARID, J., concur.