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 pled guilty to two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain merchandise valued at $375.02 and $54.46, respectively. The Defendant was later charged as a habitual offender due to three prior felony convictions. The trial court initially sentenced the Defendant to ninety days in custody for the underlying charges but later increased the sentence after the habitual offender trial, leading to a dispute over whether this violated the Defendant's double jeopardy rights (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, June 4, 1997: The Defendant pled guilty to two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card.
- District Court, June 23, 1997: The Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was denied.
- District Court, July 7, 1997: The Defendant was sentenced to ninety days in custody for the underlying charges.
- District Court, August 18, 1997: The Defendant was found to be a habitual offender, and the sentence was increased to twenty and one-half years.
- District Court, September 24, 1997: The sentence was amended to eleven years, but this amendment was later deemed invalid due to the Defendant's pending appeal.
- District Court, January 13, 1998: A second amended judgment imposed a total sentence of eleven years (paras 2-5).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that increasing the sentence on the underlying charges after he had begun serving the original ninety-day sentence violated his double jeopardy rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 15 of the New Mexico Constitution (paras 6-7).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant had no reasonable expectation of finality in the original sentence because the habitual offender proceedings were pending, and the sentence was not yet finalized in writing (paras 6, 9-10).
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court violate the Defendant's double jeopardy rights by increasing the sentence on the underlying charges after the Defendant had begun serving the original sentence? (para 6)
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals vacated the increased sentence and remanded the case to the trial court to reimpose the original ninety-day sentence on the underlying charges, with an eight-year enhancement for habitual offender status, resulting in a total sentence of eight years and ninety days (para 15).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Alarid and Armijo JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the trial court violated the Defendant's double jeopardy rights by increasing the sentence on the underlying charges after the Defendant had begun serving the original ninety-day sentence. Under New Mexico law, a valid sentence cannot be increased once a defendant has started serving it, except in cases where the original sentence is illegal or improper, which was not the case here (paras 7-8).
The Court rejected the State's argument that the Defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of finality in the original sentence due to the pending habitual offender proceedings. It emphasized that the underlying charges and habitual offender enhancements are separate proceedings, and the Defendant's expectation of finality in the ninety-day sentence was reasonable once he began serving it (paras 11-13).
The Court also dismissed the argument that the oral sentence was not final because it had not been reduced to writing, distinguishing this case from precedent where the defendant had not yet begun serving the sentence. Here, the Defendant was incarcerated on the ninety-day sentence, creating a reasonable expectation of finality (para 14).