N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 33 / Article 3
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 33-3-9 (2026)

County jails; deduction of time for good behavior.

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
A. The sheriff or jail administrator of any county, with the approval of the committing
judge or presiding judge, may grant any person imprisoned in the county jail a deduction
of time from the term of his sentence for good behavior and industry and shall establish
rules for the accrual of "good time". Deductions of time shall not exceed one-half of the
term of the prisoner's original sentence. If a prisoner is under two or more cumulative
sentences, the sentences shall be treated as one sentence for the purpose of deducting
time for good behavior.

   B. A prisoner shall not accrue good time for the mandatory portion of a sentence
imposed pursuant to the provisions of:

       (1)    Sections 66-8-102 and 66-5-39 NMSA 1978; or

       (2)     a county or municipal ordinance that prohibits driving while under the
influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, or driving with a revoked or suspended driver's
license.

    C. A part or all of the prisoner's accrued deductions may be forfeited for any conduct
violation. The sheriff or jail administrator shall establish rules and procedures for the
forfeiture of accrued deductions and keep a record of all forfeitures of accrued
deductions and the reasons for the forfeitures. In addition, any independent contractor
shall also keep a duplicate record of such forfeitures.

   D. No other time allowance or credits in addition to deductions of time permitted
under this section may be granted to any prisoner.

    E. If a private independent contractor operates a jail, he shall make reports of
disciplinary violations and good behavior to the sheriff of the county in which the jail is
located. All action on such reports and awards or forfeitures of good time shall be made
by the sheriff. The independent contractor shall not have the power to award or cause
the forfeiture of good time pursuant to this section.

History: 1953 Comp., § 42-2-7.1, enacted by Laws 1969, ch. 207, § 1; 1983, ch. 181, §
10; 1984, ch. 22, § 11; 1993, ch. 134, § 1; 1995, ch. 112, § 1.

                                     ANNOTATIONS
Cross references. — For the definition of jail administrator, see 4-44-19 NMSA 1978.

The 1995 amendment, effective July 1, 1995, in Subsection A, substituted "of any
county, with the approval of the committing judge or presiding judge, may" for "as
defined in Section 4-44-19 NMSA 1978 of any county shall" in the first sentence,
deleted "except when a prisoner is being credited with good time due to community
service work that he is performing" from the end of the second sentence, and deleted
the third through fifth sentences regarding deductions for community services; added
Subsection B; and redesignated former Subsections B through D as Subsections C
through E.

The 1993 amendment, effective July 1, 1993, in Subsection A, in the first sentence,
inserted "as defined in Section 4-44-19 NMSA 1978", deleted "with the approval of the
district judge or committing judge, may" following the first occurrence of "county" and
made two stylistic changes, in the second sentence, substituted "one-half" for "one-
third" and added the language following "original sentence", and inserted the third,
fourth, and fifth sentences; and, in Subsection B, inserted "establish rules and
procedures for the forfeiture of accrued deductions and" in the second sentence.

This section does not require a sentencing judge to grant a convicted person the
opportunity to earn good time credits while in jail. State v. Wyman, 2008-NMCA-
113, 144 N.M. 701, 191 P.3d 559, cert. quashed, 2009-NMCERT-012, 147 N.M. 600,
227 P.3d 90.

Constitutionality of good time credit scheme. — New Mexico's good time credit
statutory scheme does not offend the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the
law; it is reasonable not to award good time credits for presentence confinement to
detainees who are presumed innocent and therefore are not yet subject to rehabilitation
efforts or to compulsory labor requirements, especially when they are held without
systematic evaluation in county jails lacking rehabilitation programs. State v. Aqui,
1986-NMSC-048, 104 N.M. 345, 721 P.2d 771, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 917, 107 S. Ct.
321, 93 L. Ed. 2d 294 (1986).

New Mexico's statutory scheme making prisoners eligible for awards of good time
credits for the periods of their post-sentencing confinement in Correction Department
facilities and county jails but not for the periods of their presentence confinement in
county jails does not offend the due process guarantees of the New Mexico and United
States constitutions. State v. Aqui, 1986-NMSC-048, 104 N.M. 345, 721 P.2d 771, cert.
denied, 479 U.S. 917, 107 S. Ct. 321, 93 L. Ed. 2d 294 (1986).

Failure to allow good time credit for presentence confinement does not subject a
prisoner to double jeopardy. Enright v. State, 1986-NMSC-070, 104 N.M. 672, 726 P.2d
349.

New Mexico's statutory scheme, which does not allow good time credit for presentence
confinement, does not offend the equal protection and due process guarantees of the
New Mexico and United States constitutions. Enright v. State, 1986-NMSC-070, 104
N.M. 672, 726 P.2d 349.

Applicability of good time credits. — Good time credits are available only to
convicted and sentenced prisoners and did not apply to the defendant who was
incarcerated between the date of the crime and the trial. State v. Landgraf, 1996-
NMCA-024, 121 N.M. 445, 913 P.2d 252, cert. denied, 121 N.M. 375, 911 P.2d 883.

Discretion of administrators. — Deduction of good time credits from an inmate's
sentence is a discretionary matter entrusted not to the courts but to the administrators of
the corrections department or the county jails. State v. Aqui, 1986-NMSC-048, 104 N.M.
345, 721 P.2d 771, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 917, 107 S. Ct. 321, 93 L. Ed. 2d 294 (1986).

Court of sentencing no effect upon good behavior credit. — The fact that one
prisoner committed to the county jail was sentenced in the municipal court and another
was sentenced in a district court does not provide sufficient basis for classifying those
two prisoners differently for purposes of granting credit for good behavior. 1972 Op.
Att'y Gen. No. 72-57.

Law reviews. — For article, "Prisoners Are People," see 10 Nat. Resources J. 869
(1970).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 60 Am. Jur. 2d Penal and Correctional
Institutions §§ 222 to 235.

Withdrawal, forfeiture, modification or denial of good time allowance to prisoner, 95
A.L.R.2d 1265.

72 C.J.S. Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 144 to 153.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: State v. Wyman, 2008-NMCA-113, 191 P.3d 559.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Wyman, 2008-NMCA-113, 191 P.3d 559. · cites it 34× “{1} In this case we hold that NMSA 1978, § 33-3-9 (1995) does not require a sentencing judge to grant a convicted person the opportunity to earn good time credits while in jail.”
State v. Aqui, 721 P.2d 771 (N.M. 1986). · cites it 14× “Subsection 33-3-9 provides that "any person imprisoned in the county jail [may be granted] a deduction of time from the term of his sentence for good behavior * * *" by the sheriff or jail administrator of the county, who is authorized to establish rules for the accrual of good…”
State v. Horton, 2008-NMCA-061, 183 P.3d 956. · cites it 10× “That section provides: The sheriff or jail administrator of any county, with the approval of the committing judge or presiding judge, may grant any person imprisoned in the county jail a deduction of time from the term of his sentence for good behavior and industry and shall…”
State v. Tafoya, 2010-NMSC-019, 237 P.3d 693. · cites it 4× “The Legislature created the EMDA, and the analogous jail good time statute, NMSA 1978, § 33-3-9 (1995), as a tool for managing prisons and jails and to encourage inmate cooperation, good behavior, and rehabilitation.”
State v. Landgraf, 913 P.2d 252 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Defendant maintains that, because the district court acknowledged Defendant was a model prisoner and trustee at the county jail, NMSA 1978, Section 33-3-9(A) (Repl.Pamp.1990), requires an award of good-time credit.”
State v. Frost, 2003-NMCA-002, 60 P.3d 492. · cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, § 33-3-9(B) (1995). Essentially, the State contends that the absence of express statutory language authorizing DWI jail terms to be satisfied by home confinement, as well as the many limitations put on felony DWI sentences, support its position that the legislature…”
State v. Clah, 1997-NMCA-091, 946 P.2d 210. · cites it 2× “” By limiting suspension and deferral of sentence, the legislature significantly curtailed judicial discretion in sentencing otherwise generally available under NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-3 (Repl.”
State v. Benally, No. 29,293 (N.M. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2009). · cites it 6× “15 Defendant responds by arguing that it was error to deny him the opportunity to 16 earn deductions from his sentence for good behavior, and that our decision in Wyman 17 is simply incorrect.”
State v. Roger II, No. A-1-CA-41083 (N.M. Ct. App. July 7, 2023). · cites it 2× “Defendant nonetheless asserts that the district court abused its discretion by denying him the ability to accrue good time credit while incarcerated because the accrual of good time credit is conditioned on “the approval of the committing judge or presiding judge” under NMSA…”
State v. Turrietta, No. 29,508 (N.M. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2009). · cites it 2× “[MIO 42-56] We are not 9 persuaded that we should overrule Wyman here.”
State v. Stanfil, No. 29,841 (N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2010). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 33-3-9(A) (1995) 4 (stating that the jail administrator “with the approval of the committing judge or 5 presiding judge,” grants credit against a prisoner’s sentence for good behavior and 6 establishes the rules for accrual of good time credits); cf.”
McDaniel-Ortega v. Lemaster, No. 98-2142 (10th Cir. Feb. 16, 1999). “3 New Mexico authorities did not transfer McDaniel-Ortega to the state penitentiary until completion of all his 3 The parties agreed at oral argument that the good time provision for county jail incarceration, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 33-3-9 , applies only to prisoners serving county…”
N.M. Stat. § 33-3-9(A): 7 cases
State v. Horton, 2008-NMCA-061, 183 P.3d 956. “That section provides: The sheriff or jail administrator of any county, with the approval of the committing judge or presiding judge, may grant any person imprisoned in the county jail a deduction of time from the term of his sentence for good behavior and industry and shall…”
State v. Wyman, 2008-NMCA-113, 191 P.3d 559. “{1} In this case we hold that NMSA 1978, § 33-3-9 (1995) does not require a sentencing judge to grant a convicted person the opportunity to earn good time credits while in jail.”
State v. Landgraf, 913 P.2d 252 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996). “Defendant maintains that, because the district court acknowledged Defendant was a model prisoner and trustee at the county jail, NMSA 1978, Section 33-3-9(A) (Repl.Pamp.1990), requires an award of good-time credit.”
State v. Benally, No. 29,293 (N.M. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2009). “15 Defendant responds by arguing that it was error to deny him the opportunity to 16 earn deductions from his sentence for good behavior, and that our decision in Wyman 17 is simply incorrect.”
State v. Roger II, No. A-1-CA-41083 (N.M. Ct. App. July 7, 2023). “Defendant nonetheless asserts that the district court abused its discretion by denying him the ability to accrue good time credit while incarcerated because the accrual of good time credit is conditioned on “the approval of the committing judge or presiding judge” under NMSA…”
N.M. Stat. § 33-3-9(B): 2 cases
State v. Frost, 2003-NMCA-002, 60 P.3d 492. “NMSA 1978, § 33-3-9(B) (1995). Essentially, the State contends that the absence of express statutory language authorizing DWI jail terms to be satisfied by home confinement, as well as the many limitations put on felony DWI sentences, support its position that the legislature…”
State v. Clah, 1997-NMCA-091, 946 P.2d 210. “” By limiting suspension and deferral of sentence, the legislature significantly curtailed judicial discretion in sentencing otherwise generally available under NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-3 (Repl.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.