This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was stopped by a State Police Officer for a vehicle equipment violation. During the stop, the officer discovered an outstanding warrant for the Defendant. When the officer attempted to arrest him, the Defendant fired three shots at the officer, hitting him. The Defendant was later charged with multiple counts, including assault with intent to commit a violent felony on a peace officer, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and being a habitual offender (paras 3-4).
Procedural History
- Trial Court, December 12, 1990: The Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault with intent to commit a violent felony on a peace officer, one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and one count of being a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced him to 20 years and rejected his double jeopardy claims (paras 5-6).
- Court of Appeals, July 10, 1992: The Defendant's appeal was dismissed due to an untimely notice of appeal (para 7).
- District Court, Post-Conviction Habeas Corpus: The court granted the Defendant's habeas corpus petition, allowing him to file a timely appeal, but rejected his additional double jeopardy claim regarding the use of the same prior felony for multiple purposes (para 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his double jeopardy rights were violated by being convicted of two counts of assault for a single continuous act, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him as a habitual offender due to procedural defects, and that the use of his prior conditional discharge for both conviction and sentence enhancement violated double jeopardy (paras 1, 18, 28, 37).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant's guilty plea barred his double jeopardy claims, that the convictions for two counts of assault were justified as separate offenses, that the habitual offender information was properly filed, and that the use of the conditional discharge was valid and did not violate double jeopardy (paras 8, 20, 28, 37).
Legal Issues
- Does the Defendant's guilty plea bar him from raising double jeopardy claims on appeal?
- Did convicting the Defendant of two counts of assault with intent to commit a violent felony on a peace officer violate his double jeopardy rights?
- Did the trial court lack jurisdiction to sentence the Defendant as a habitual offender due to procedural defects?
- Was the use of the Defendant's prior conditional discharge for both conviction and sentence enhancement improper or a violation of double jeopardy?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals held that the Defendant's guilty plea did not bar his double jeopardy claims and addressed them on the merits (paras 2, 9-17).
- The Court found that convicting the Defendant of two counts of assault violated his double jeopardy rights and vacated one of the convictions (paras 2, 27).
- The Court upheld the trial court's jurisdiction to sentence the Defendant as a habitual offender (para 28).
- The Court ruled that the use of the Defendant's prior conditional discharge for both conviction and sentence enhancement was proper and did not violate double jeopardy (paras 36-38).
Reasons
Per Flores J. (Alarid and Black JJ. concurring):
Guilty Plea and Double Jeopardy: The Court relied on State v. Jackson and New Mexico's anti-waiver statute to hold that a guilty plea does not bar double jeopardy claims when the violation is apparent on the face of the record. The Defendant preserved the issue by raising it at multiple stages, and the trial court and prosecution were aware of his intent to appeal (paras 8-17).
Double Jeopardy and Assault Convictions: Applying factors from State v. Mares and Herron v. State, the Court found that the Defendant's three shots were part of a single, continuous act with one intent to kill the officer. The absence of distinct acts or intervening events meant that convicting the Defendant of two counts of assault violated double jeopardy (paras 18-27).
Habitual Offender Jurisdiction: The Court determined that the supplemental information charging the Defendant as a habitual offender was properly filed in open court, and the Defendant waived any objections to its filing (para 28).
Use of Conditional Discharge: The Court held that the Defendant knowingly waived his right to challenge the use of his prior conditional discharge for sentence enhancement. The Defendant had proposed its use during plea negotiations and agreed not to appeal the issue (paras 29-36).
Double Use of Conditional Discharge: The Court distinguished this case from State v. Haddenham, finding no double jeopardy violation because the conditional discharge was used to prove the felon-in-possession charge and to enhance the assault sentences, but not to enhance the firearm conviction itself (paras 37-38).
The Court allowed the Defendant to vacate his plea if the State agreed, or alternatively, to accept the corrected sentence with one assault conviction vacated (para 39).