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 armed robbery in 1988 and completed his sentence in 1992. In 2004, the Defendant, armed with a knife, broke into a home, threatened the resident, and stole items. He was charged with armed robbery as a second offense under New Mexico's robbery statute, which escalates repeat armed robbery offenses to first-degree felonies (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Colfax County: The Defendant entered a conditional plea agreement, pleading guilty to first-degree armed robbery while reserving the right to appeal the enhancement of his sentence under the robbery statute (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the ten-year limitation on prior felony convictions in the habitual offender statute should also apply to the robbery statute, and therefore, his 1988 conviction should not have been used to enhance his current offense to a first-degree felony (para 2, 4).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the robbery statute does not include a time limitation for prior offenses and that the enhancement to a first-degree felony was proper under the plain language of the statute (paras 4, 8).
Legal Issues
- Does the ten-year limitation on prior felony convictions in the habitual offender statute apply to the enhancement provision in the robbery statute?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's conviction for first-degree armed robbery (para 10).
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Bustamante CJ. and Fry J. concurring):
The Court held that the ten-year limitation in the habitual offender statute does not apply to the robbery statute. The robbery statute explicitly enhances repeat armed robbery offenses to first-degree felonies without imposing any time limitation between offenses. The Court emphasized that the plain language of the robbery statute is unambiguous and does not include a temporal restriction (paras 6-8).
The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the legislature intended the ten-year limitation in the habitual offender statute to apply to the robbery statute. It reasoned that the two statutes serve distinct purposes: the habitual offender statute is general, while the robbery statute is specific and designed to impose harsher penalties on repeat armed robbers. The Court also noted that the legislature has not amended the robbery statute to include a time limitation, despite amending the habitual offender statute in 2002 (paras 8-9).
The Court concluded that the legislative intent of the robbery statute is to subject repeat armed robbers to greater punishment, and the enhancement provision applies regardless of the time elapsed between offenses (paras 8-10).