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 entered a no-contest plea to a fourth-degree felony and admitted to having two prior felony convictions. As part of a plea agreement, the State agreed to pursue a sentence enhancement based on only one prior felony, with the condition that if the Defendant violated probation, the State could seek an additional enhancement based on both prior felonies. The Defendant violated probation by leaving New Mexico without permission, leading to a motion to revoke probation and a subsequent sentence enhancement (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court, February 15, 1995: The Defendant was resentenced as a third offender under the habitual-offender statute after violating probation. The court imposed a total sentence of five and one-half years, including a four-year enhancement for two prior felonies (paras 5-6).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the second enhancement violated double jeopardy by using the same prior felony twice and lacked statutory authorization. The Defendant also claimed that the enhancement violated reasonable expectations of finality in sentencing and that the habitual-offender statute did not permit such enhancements based on probation violations (paras 6-16).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the enhancement was valid under the habitual-offender statute and consistent with the plea agreement. The State argued that the Defendant's probation violation triggered the additional enhancement, which was authorized by law and did not violate double jeopardy or sentencing finality principles (paras 7-16).
Legal Issues
- Did the second enhancement violate the Defendant's double-jeopardy rights?
- Was the second enhancement authorized under the habitual-offender statute?
- Did the second enhancement violate the Defendant's reasonable expectations of finality in sentencing?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to impose the second enhancement (para 17).
Reasons
Per Hartz J. (Apodaca C.J. and Alarid J. concurring):
Double Jeopardy: The court held that there was no double use of the same prior felony because the original sentence was nullified upon resentencing, and the second enhancement superseded the first. Even if there were double use, it would be permissible under the legislative intent of the habitual-offender statute, which mandates enhancements for prior felonies (paras 7-9). The court also found that habitual-offender proceedings do not implicate double-jeopardy protections because they address sentencing, not guilt or innocence (paras 9-10).
Statutory Authorization: The court determined that the habitual-offender statute authorized the second enhancement based on the Defendant's two prior felonies. The enhancement was not based on the probation violation itself but on the prior convictions, with the probation violation triggering the State's discretion to pursue the enhancement. The court rejected the argument that the enhancement constituted an unauthorized penalty for the probation violation (paras 14-16).
Finality of Sentencing: The court found that the Defendant had no reasonable expectation of finality in the original sentence because the plea agreement explicitly warned of the possibility of further enhancement if probation was violated. The enhancement was part of a single sentence, and credit for time served did not convert the enhancement into an unauthorized penalty (paras 11-12, 16).
The court concluded that the district court's procedure and sentence were lawful and consistent with the habitual-offender statute (para 17).