AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 convicted of multiple felonies, including possession of a firearm by a felon and aggravated battery. The State sought to enhance the Defendant's sentence under the habitual offender statute, which allows for sentence enhancements based on prior felony convictions within ten years of the current conviction. The Defendant had three prior felony convictions, but the parties disputed whether two of them fell within the ten-year period for enhancement purposes (paras 4-6).

Procedural History

• Trial Court, May 19, 2003: The Defendant was sentenced to a total of eleven years, with enhancements based on three prior felony convictions. The trial court did not apply the ten-year limitation period under the 2002 amendment to the habitual offender statute (para 5).
• Court of Appeals, May 27, 2004: The Court reversed the Defendant's sentence, holding that the 2002 amendment to the habitual offender statute applied, and remanded for re-sentencing (para 5).
• Supreme Court of New Mexico, 2004: Certiorari was granted but later quashed, and the case was returned to the trial court for re-sentencing (para 5).
• Trial Court, April 25, 2005: The trial court re-sentenced the Defendant, calculating the ten-year period from the date of re-sentencing and sentencing the Defendant as a one-time habitual offender (para 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (State): Argued that the ten-year period for determining prior felony convictions under the habitual offender statute should be calculated from the date of the current conviction, not the date of re-sentencing (paras 6-7).
• Appellee (Defendant): Contended that the ten-year period should be calculated from the date of re-sentencing, which would result in only one prior conviction being used for enhancement (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State could raise the illegality of the Defendant's sentence for the first time on appeal.
• Whether the ten-year period for determining prior felony convictions under the habitual offender statute should be calculated from the date of the current conviction or the date of re-sentencing.

Disposition

• The Court held that the State could raise the issue of the illegality of the sentence for the first time on appeal (para 8).
• The Court reversed the trial court's decision and held that the ten-year period under the habitual offender statute should be calculated from the date of the current conviction (para 15).

Reasons

Per Fry J. (Robinson and Kennedy JJ. concurring):

• The Court determined that the issue of an illegal sentence is jurisdictional and can be raised for the first time on appeal. This principle is supported by prior case law, including State v. Shay and State v. Martinez (paras 8-10).
• The Court interpreted the habitual offender statute, NMSA 1978, § 31-18-17, and found that its plain language requires the ten-year period to be calculated from the date of the current conviction, not the date of sentencing or re-sentencing. The statute explicitly refers to "the instant felony conviction" as the reference point for determining prior convictions (paras 11-12).
• The Court rejected the Defendant's reliance on State v. Shay and State v. Lucero, noting that those cases addressed different issues and did not support calculating the ten-year period from the date of re-sentencing (paras 13-14).
• The Court concluded that the Defendant had two applicable prior convictions for enhancement purposes and remanded the case for re-sentencing consistent with this interpretation (para 15).