{
  "id": 1582596,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guinn GROSS, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gross",
  "decision_date": "1982-06-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 5549",
  "first_page": "309",
  "last_page": "311",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 N.M. 309"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "648 P.2d 348"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "94 N.M. 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1573193
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/94/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 N.M. 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1577410
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/96/0556-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 248,
    "char_count": 3451,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.796,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4084495270826735e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6464822852606464
    },
    "sha256": "854a91ac15b9d2bd8177cbd3c635344249e7ed29f61a274e7f9d2a627f820064",
    "simhash": "1:86e8faee83e2db26",
    "word_count": 550
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:13:49.367595+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WOOD and LOPEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guinn GROSS, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWALTERS, Chief Judge.\nUpon conviction of a third-degree felony of embezzlement over $2500, defendant was sentenced to three years\u2019 imprisonment, two years\u2019 parole thereafter, and payment of a $5,000 fine. That portion of the sentence was authorized by and in accordance with \u00a7 31-18-15B, C, and D, N.M.S.A.1978, in effect at the time the offense was committed. The court also ordered full restitution to the victims as a condition of parole, under the provisions of \u00a7 31-17-1, N.M.S. A.1978.\nDefendant has briefed only his contention that the order of restitution was not authorized by law, abandoning the other issue raised in his docketing statement. State v. Gonzales, 96 N.M. 556, 632 P.2d 1194 (Ct.App.1981).\nSection 31-17-1, supra, sets forth the policy in its subsection A \u201cthat restitution be made by each violator of the Criminal Code ... to the victims of his criminal activities\u201d and that the law \u201cshall be interpreted and administered to effectuate this policy.\u201d Subsection B provides, in part:\nIf the trial court exercises either of the sentencing options under Section 31-20-6 NMSA 1978 [deferment or suspension of any or all of the sentence], the court shall require as a condition of probation or parole that the defendant, in cooperation with the probation or parole officer assigned to the defendant, promptly prepare a plan of restitution, including a specific amount of restitution to each victim and a schedule of restitution payments.\nSection 31-21-10D requires the parole board to require restitution as a condition of parole if the trial court invokes the provisions of \u00a7 31-17-1, supra, as a part of the inmate\u2019s sentence.\nDefendant urges, and the State concedes, that \u00a7 31-17-1B, supra, permits the sentencing court to impose the requirement of restitution only if the options of deferment or suspension under \u00a7 31-20-6, supra, are applied to the defendant\u2019s sentence.\nThe State and defendant are mistaken. Section 31-17-1B, supra, makes it mandatory to require restitution when sentence is deferred or suspended; the court has no discretion in such instances. On the other hand, \u00a7 31-17-1A, supra, establishes New Mexico\u2019s policy as requiring that each violator make restitution, and directs the courts to interpret and administer the law in a manner that will enforce the policy. Subsection B contains no qualifying language limiting the application of the policy only to those cases in which sentence is suspended or deferred. If the statute is ambiguous in any respect and requires interpretation \u2014 and we are not deciding that it is ambiguous \u2014 we would interpret Subsection B to allow an order of restitution as a part of the sentence in all criminal convictions, but to absolutely require it when the trial court exercises the discretion permitted by \u00a7 31-20-6, supra. The intent of the statute as expressed by the legislature will be given effect by the courts. Arnold v. State, 94 N.M. 381, 610 P.2d 1210 (1980).\nThe judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED.\nWOOD and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WALTERS, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, David Stafford, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Barbara F. Green, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "648 P.2d 348\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guinn GROSS, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 5549.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJune 8, 1982.\nRehearing Denied June 22, 1982.\nCertiorari Denied July 19, 1982.\nJohn B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, David Stafford, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.\nJeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Barbara F. Green, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0309-01",
  "first_page_order": 347,
  "last_page_order": 349
}