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 Driver was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) on three separate occasions within a ten-year period. The third conviction resulted from a plea agreement in which the Driver pleaded guilty to DWI as a "first offense for all lawful purposes." Despite this designation, the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) revoked the Driver's license based on the three DWI convictions (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court, February 23, 1998: Accepted the Driver's plea agreement and entered a judgment convicting the Driver of DWI as a "first offense" (para 2).
- MVD Director: Sustained the revocation of the Driver's license under NMSA 1978, § 66-5-5(D) (para 3).
- District Court: Affirmed the MVD's decision, holding that the "first offense" designation in the plea agreement did not preclude license revocation under § 66-5-5(D) (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Driver): Argued that the "first offense for all lawful purposes" designation in the plea agreement and judgment should preclude the MVD from revoking his license under § 66-5-5(D). He claimed that the plea agreement created an expectation that his driving privileges would not be affected, and revocation violated due process (paras 5, 9).
- Respondent (MVD): Contended that § 66-5-5(D) mandates license revocation based solely on the number of DWI convictions within a ten-year period, regardless of the "first offense" designation. The MVD argued that the plea agreement did not explicitly preserve the Driver's license, distinguishing this case from prior precedent (paras 6-8).
Legal Issues
- Does the "first offense for all lawful purposes" designation in the plea agreement preclude the MVD from revoking the Driver's license under NMSA 1978, § 66-5-5(D)?
- Did the MVD's revocation of the Driver's license violate due process?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the MVD's revocation of the Driver's license (para 10).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Alarid and Sutin JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the MVD acted within its authority under § 66-5-5(D), which mandates license revocation for individuals with three DWI convictions within a ten-year period. The statute focuses on the number of convictions, not their sequence or designation. The "first offense for all lawful purposes" designation in the plea agreement did not eliminate the prior convictions from the Driver's record or explicitly preserve his driving privileges. The Court distinguished this case from Collyer v. State Taxation & Revenue Department, where the plea agreement explicitly preserved the defendant's license, and aligned it with State v. Gaede, where numerical designations of offenses did not preclude statutory consequences (paras 6-8).
The Court rejected the Driver's due process argument, stating that subjective expectations based on the plea agreement were insufficient to override statutory requirements. The Driver failed to ensure that the plea agreement explicitly protected his license, as required to avoid revocation under § 66-5-5(D) (para 9).