State v. Aguilar
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v. No. 35,948 5 KARINA AGUILAR, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Jacqueline D. Flores, District Judge 9 10 11 12 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Elizabeth Ashton, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellee 14 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 15 Santa Fe, NM 16 for Appellant 17 18 ZAMORA, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Defendant Karina Aguilar appeals from the district court’s denial of her motion 2 to modify the conditions of her probation to transfer her from supervised to 3 unsupervised probation. [DS 2-3; RP 37, 44, 46] This Court issued a notice proposing 4 summary reversal. [CN 1,4] The State filed a memorandum in opposition, which we 5 have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we reverse. 6 {2} Defendant argues on appeal the district court erroneously denied her motion to 7 modify the conditions of her probation, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 31-21-21 8 (1963), from supervised to unsupervised upon the district court’s mistaken belief it 9 lacked the jurisdiction to do so because the time for reduction of a sentence under 10 Rule 5-801 NMRA had expired. [DS 4] As we noted in our proposed disposition, our 11 Supreme Court has previously interpreted Section 31-21-21 “to grant the district court 12 the discretion to modify conditions of probation in appropriate cases.” State v. 13 Trujillo, 1994-NMSC-066, ¶ 13, 117 N.M. 769, 877 P.2d 575. [CN 3] However, the 14 district court in Trujillo was determined to have abused its discretion in modifying the 15 defendant’s probation because the modification violated the terms of a valid plea 16 agreement. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. [CN 3] As we pointed out in our notice, unlike the plea in 17 Trujillo, the plea agreement in the present case did not include any specific terms of 18 Defendant’s sentence, beyond a two-year cap on incarceration at initial sentencing. 19 [CN 3] Thus, we proposed to hold modification of the supervision terms of 2 1 Defendant’s probation would not result in an impermissible modification of the plea 2 agreement in the manner the elimination of in-patient substance abuse treatment 3 violated the terms of the plea agreement in Trujillo. Id. ¶¶ 14–15. 4 {3} In its memorandum in opposition, as in its response to Defendant’s motion 5 below [RP 39], the State continues to argue the district court lacked jurisdiction to 6 modify the terms of Defendant’s probation and supervision level because her motion 7 was untimely under Rule 5-801. [MIO 4] However, as we pointed out in our notice, 8 Rule 5-801 pertains to reduction of a sentence. See Rule 5-801 (“A motion to reduce 9 a sentence may be filed within ninety (90) days after the sentence is imposed[.]. . . A 10 motion to reduce a sentence may also be filed upon revocation of probation as 11 provided by law.” (emphasis added)). The State argues a modification of the terms of 12 Defendant’s probation from supervised to unsupervised “is a functional equivalent of 13 a motion to reduce sentence.” [MIO 4] The State cites no authority in support of this 14 proposition, and, therefore, we find the State’s argument unavailing. See State v. Vigil15 Giron, 2014-NMCA-069, ¶ 60, 327 P.3d 1129 (“[A]ppellate courts will not consider 16 an issue if no authority is cited in support of the issue and that, given no cited 17 authority, we assume no such authority exists[.]”). 18 {4} The State goes on to argue, while Section 31-21-21 “reasonably can be read to 19 grant the district court the discretion to modify conditions of probation in appropriate 3 1 cases[,]” Trujillo did not set forth any guidelines for the application of Section 31-212 21. Trujillo, 1994-NMSC-066, ¶ 13. [MIO 5] The appellate court reviews a sentence 3 imposed for abuse of discretion. The trial court does not abuse its discretion by 4 imposing a sentence authorized by law. See State v. Cumpton, 2000-NMCA-033, ¶¶ 95 10, 129 N.M. 47, 1 P.3d 429. Given the discretion granted to district courts in 6 sentencing and modification of conditions of probation, the plea agreement’s silence 7 regarding the conditions or supervision level of Defendant’s probation, and the State’s 8 failure to articulate why the district court’s application of Section 31-21-21 should be 9 subject to particular guidelines or factors, we decline to determine whether the present 10 case is an appropriate case for the district court’s exercise of discretion and leave the 11 application of Section 31-21-21 to the district court in the first instance. 12 {5} Therefore, based on the reasons explained above and in this Court’s notice of 13 proposed disposition, we reverse. 14 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 17 WE CONCUR: 18 19 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 4 1 2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
