the original period of his probation expired and, on the date of expiration, the court had yet to revoke his probation. Defendant also argues that the court failed to apply the appropriate test to determine whether he was a fugitive and that the finding that he was a fugitive was not supported by substantial evidence. STANDARD OF REVIEW {6} In relevant part, Section 31-21-15(C) states that a probationer is a fugitive “[i]f it is found that a warrant for the return of a probationer cannot be served[.]” Defendant’s jurisdictional challenge requires that we determine whether the district court properly applied Section 31-21 -15(C) to the facts of this case. Defendant thereby raises a question of law that we review de novo. See State v. Neal, 2007-NMCA-086, ¶ 16, 142 N.M. 487, 167 P.3d 935 (<HOLDING>). A jurisdictional challenge may be raised “at
holding that whether a statute affects sentencing is a question of law subject to de novo review holding we review claim construction de novo on appeal recognizing that the standard of review for issues of statutory interpretation and construction is de novo holding that review of the construction of a sentencing statute is de novo recognizing de novo standard of review