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 possession of a controlled substance on October 11, 2001. After entering a no contest plea on June 17, 2002, the State filed a supplemental criminal information on June 25, 2002, seeking a habitual offender enhancement based on a prior felony conviction from March 15, 1989. The 2002 amendment to the habitual offender statute, effective July 1, 2002, excluded convictions older than ten years from being considered for enhancement. The Defendant argued that the amendment should apply to his case, as his prior conviction would not qualify under the new law (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, January 16, 2003: The court applied the habitual offender statute in effect at the time of the offense and enhanced the Defendant's sentence by one year (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not applying the 2002 amendment to the habitual offender statute, which would exclude his 1989 conviction from consideration for sentence enhancement (para 3).
- State-Appellee: Contended that the district court correctly applied the statute in effect at the time of the offense, asserting that the 2002 amendment should not retroactively apply to pending cases (para 3).
Legal Issues
- Does Article IV, Section 34 of the New Mexico Constitution prohibit the application of the 2002 amendment to the habitual offender statute in this case?
- Should the 2002 amendment to the habitual offender statute apply to the Defendant's sentencing, given the timing of the supplemental criminal information and the amendment's effective date?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to apply the habitual offender statute in effect at the time of the offense, upholding the one-year sentence enhancement (para 10).
Reasons
Per Wechsler CJ (Alarid and Fry JJ. concurring):
The Court held that Article IV, Section 34 of the New Mexico Constitution prohibits legislative acts from affecting the rights or remedies of parties in pending cases. The supplemental criminal information was filed before the 2002 amendment's effective date, making the case "pending" under Article IV, Section 34. The amendment was not a neutral legislative act, as it limited the scope of the habitual offender statute and could affect the State's rights in the case. Therefore, the amendment could not apply retroactively to exclude the Defendant's 1989 conviction (paras 4-7).
The Court distinguished this case from State v. Shay, where the supplemental information was filed after the amendment's effective date, and Article IV, Section 34 did not apply. Here, the filing of the supplemental information before July 1, 2002, established the case as pending, and the amendment could not alter the State's rights or remedies (paras 3-4, 7).
The Court also rejected the Defendant's reliance on State v. Pace and Woo Dak San v. State, noting that those cases involved final judgments or unique circumstances, such as the death penalty, which were not present here. The Court emphasized that Article IV, Section 34 applies to both civil and criminal cases and protects the rights of either party in pending litigation (paras 8-9).