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 2007 of several crimes, including Possession of a Firearm by a Felon. The State sought to enhance his sentence under New Mexico’s habitual offender statute, citing two 1991 federal felony convictions—Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine and Carrying a Firearm During a Drug Trafficking Crime—and a 2005 state felony conviction. The Defendant argued that one of the 1991 convictions was improperly used both as a predicate felony for his firearm possession conviction and to enhance his sentence under the habitual offender statute (paras 1, 4).
Procedural History
- District Court, 2007: The Defendant was convicted of several crimes, including Possession of a Firearm by a Felon. The court enhanced his sentence by four years under the habitual offender statute, citing two 1991 federal felony convictions and a 2005 state felony conviction (paras 1, 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the 1991 federal conviction under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1) was improperly used both as a predicate felony for his firearm possession conviction and to enhance his sentence under the habitual offender statute, violating double jeopardy principles. Additionally, he contended that the Section 924(c)(1) conviction does not qualify as a "prior felony conviction" under New Mexico law because it would not be considered a felony in the state (paras 2, 5).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the 1991 federal convictions were separate and distinct crimes, allowing one to serve as the predicate felony and the other to support the sentence enhancement. The State also argued that the Section 924(c)(1) conviction qualifies as a prior felony under New Mexico’s habitual offender statute (paras 3, 5).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant’s sentence improperly enhanced under the habitual offender statute by using the 1991 federal conviction under Section 924(c)(1) as both a predicate felony and for enhancement purposes?
- Does the 1991 federal conviction under Section 924(c)(1) qualify as a "prior felony conviction" under New Mexico’s habitual offender statute?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to enhance the Defendant’s sentence by four years under the habitual offender statute (para 13).
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Robles and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the 1991 federal conviction under Section 924(c)(1) constitutes a separate and distinct felony offense from the drug trafficking conviction under Section 841. Federal case law, including decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, consistently interprets Section 924(c)(1) as creating a distinct crime rather than merely an enhancement. Therefore, the district court properly used one 1991 conviction as the predicate felony for the firearm possession charge and the other, along with the 2005 conviction, to enhance the Defendant’s sentence under the habitual offender statute. This allocation does not violate double jeopardy principles because the two 1991 convictions involve separate elements and are distinct crimes (paras 3, 9-11).
The Court also rejected the Defendant’s argument that the Section 924(c)(1) conviction does not qualify as a "prior felony conviction" under New Mexico law. Under the habitual offender statute, a prior felony conviction includes any conviction rendered by a U.S. court that was punishable by imprisonment of more than one year. The Section 924(c)(1) conviction meets these criteria, regardless of whether it would be classified as a felony under New Mexico law (paras 12).
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the four-year sentence enhancement (para 13).