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 in 2003 of trafficking by distribution, conspiracy to commit trafficking, and possession of a controlled substance. His sentence included a habitual offender enhancement, resulting in 26 years and 6 months of incarceration and two years of supervised parole. The Defendant appealed the sentence, leading to a resentencing hearing where he was denied the opportunity to address the court before the sentence was imposed.
Procedural History
- State v. Contreras, 2007-NMCA-045, 141 N.M. 434, 156 P.3d 725: The Court of Appeals found insufficient evidence to support the habitual offender enhancement, rejected the Defendant's other arguments, and remanded the case for resentencing.
- District Court, February 2008: At the resentencing hearing, the district court modified the sentence to comply with the appellate court's decision but denied the Defendant the opportunity to speak before imposing the sentence.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his right to allocution was violated because he was not allowed to address the court before the sentence was imposed. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, the inability to present mitigating evidence, and that the sentence was not imposed in open court.
- State-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant waived his right to allocution at the resentencing hearing, as he had done at the original sentencing. The State also argued that the right of allocution does not apply to resentencing proceedings and that any error was harmless.
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant's right to allocution violated during the resentencing hearing?
- Does the right of allocution extend to resentencing proceedings?
- Can the violation of the right to allocution be considered harmless error?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals held that the Defendant's right to allocution was violated, vacated the sentence, and remanded the case for a new resentencing hearing.
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Kennedy and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the Defendant was denied his right to allocution because the district court issued its sentencing determination without allowing him to speak. The court's subsequent offer to let the Defendant speak, coupled with advice against doing so, was deemed an "empty gesture" and insufficient to satisfy the right of allocution.
The Court rejected the State's argument that the Defendant waived his right to allocution at the resentencing hearing, noting that the right must be affirmatively provided by the trial judge before sentencing. The Court also dismissed the State's claim that allocution does not apply to resentencing, citing established case law that allocution applies to all felony sentencing proceedings.
Finally, the Court declined to apply the harmless error doctrine to the allocution violation, emphasizing the fundamental due process significance of the right to allocution and its potential impact on sentencing outcomes.
The Court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for a new resentencing hearing where the Defendant must be allowed to exercise his right to allocution.