was a fugitive during the final time period of his probation when he was an absconder, there was no basis to deny him probationary credit for that time, and the district court, therefore, lost jurisdiction for anything but the already-decided hearing on his fugitive status. {13} We recognize the merit of Defendant’s concern that the district court cannot maintain jurisdiction “for an indefinite duration” after the end of a probationer’s term of probation for the purpose of determining whether fugitive status allows for tolling. But this concern is equally present when a probationer is returned to the jurisdiction after the end of a probationary term. Defendant does not challenge that a court can determine fugitive status under that circumstance. See Apache, 1986-NMCA-051, ¶ 12 (<HOLDING>). Similar due process concerns exist whether a
holding that section 10b violation occurs on date of alleged misrepresentation not the date of the sale or purchase of securities holding that a court retains jurisdiction to determine fugitive status regardless of whether this occurs before or after the date on which probation was originally to have expired holding defendant cannot establish prejudice merely by alleging court held probation revocation hearing after defendants period of probation expired holding that judge could rely on presentenee report to determine that defendant was on probation at the time of the offense but declining to base this holding the theory that probation is derivative of criminal history holding that the judicial determination of fugitive status must be made only after the probationer has been found and brought before the court regardless of whether this occurs before or after the date on which probation was originally to have expired