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 driving while intoxicated (DWI) on multiple occasions. In three of these prior convictions, the Defendant was not represented by counsel but had signed waivers of counsel. The Defendant argued that these waivers were not made knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily. The State relied on these prior convictions to enhance the Defendant's current DWI charge to a felony and to impose a habitual offender sentence enhancement (paras 1-7).
Procedural History
- District Court, Sandra A. Grisham, J.: The Defendant was convicted of felony DWI, careless driving, and driving on a suspended or revoked license. The court enhanced the Defendant's sentence by eight years under the habitual offender statute (paras 2, 7).
- State v. Gonzales, NMCA-No. 16,564: The New Mexico Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the Defendant's conviction and sentence (para 8).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Petitioner: Argued that his prior DWI convictions were invalid because he was not represented by counsel and his waivers of counsel were not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary. Further, the Defendant contended that the habitual offender statute should not apply to felony DWI convictions (paras 1, 3, 9, 19).
- State-Respondent: Asserted that the Defendant's waivers of counsel were valid and that the prior convictions could be used to enhance the current DWI charge. The State also argued that the habitual offender statute was properly applied (paras 3, 7, 14).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant's prior DWI convictions, where he was not represented by counsel, could be used to enhance his current DWI charge to a felony (para 9).
- Whether the habitual offender statute could be applied to enhance the Defendant's sentence for felony DWI (para 19).
Disposition
- The Defendant's conviction for felony DWI was affirmed (para 20).
- The enhancement of the Defendant's sentence under the habitual offender statute was reversed (para 20).
- The case was remanded for resentencing (para 20).
Reasons
Per Pamela B. Minzner, J. (Franchini C.J., Baca, Serna, and McKinnon JJ. concurring):
Validity of Prior Convictions: The Court held that the Defendant's prior DWI convictions were valid for enhancement purposes because the State provided prima facie evidence of valid waivers of counsel, which were signed and countersigned by a judge. The Defendant's testimony challenging the validity of the waivers was insufficient to rebut the State's evidence. The trial court was entitled to make credibility determinations and weigh the evidence (paras 13-18).
Application of Habitual Offender Statute: The Court determined that the habitual offender statute could not be applied to enhance the Defendant's sentence for felony DWI. Citing its prior decision in State v. Anaya, the Court concluded that the Legislature did not intend for the habitual offender statute to apply in addition to the felony DWI sentencing provisions (para 19).
Remand for Resentencing: The Court remanded the case for resentencing without the habitual offender enhancement (para 20).