 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Anaya12/6/1996
77), escape from jail (1983 and 1988), and possession of cocaine (1993). The trial court sentenced Gonzales to a total of 9 1/2 years: 1 1/2 years for felony DWI; 364 days for driving on a revoked license, to be served concurrently with the DWI sentence; and 8 years as a habitual offender.
{6} Defendants Kilgore and Irish were both convicted of felony DWI and sentenced to 18 months, 9 of which were suspended in both cases. Neither Kilgore nor Irish was subject to a sentence enhancement as a habitual offender.
{7} Anaya, Gonzales, Kilgore, and Irish all appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified these cases to this Court for resolution of the common issue "whether the existence of three prior . . . DWI convictions is an element of the new crime of felony DWI, or a sentencing matter to be considered at the enhancement stage of a felony DWI case." In addition to the common issue certified, Anaya and Gonzales allege that the sentencing courts erred by enhancing their sentences pursuant to the habitual offender statute. Section 31-18-17. Anaya further asserts that the State failed to prove in sequence three prior DWI convictions in order to enhance the charges to a felony. See ; .
{8} The procedural postures of the remaining two appeals are somewhat different. After being charged with felony DWI, Defendant Nakai entered into an alternative plea agreement with the State in which he agreed to plead guilty to felony DWI if the State was able to prove any prior DWI convictions. In the event the State was unable to prove prior convictions, he would plead guilty to misdemeanor DWI. Following execution of this plea agreement, the State filed a supplemental information alleging that Nakai previously had been convicted of escape from jail and that he was a habitual offender. At a sentencing hearing the trial court heard evidence regarding Nakai's prior DWI convictions and found that the State had proven three such convictions. At that same hearing Nakai admitted the prior felony conviction. The court sentenced Nakai to 18 months for felony DWI. The court also adJudged Nakai a habitual offender and enhanced his sentence by 1 year for a total sentence of 2 1/2 years.
{9} Nakai appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed his sentence by a memorandum opinion filed September 21, 1995. Nakai concedes that by pleading guilty he has waived his right to appeal on the ground raised by the other defendants--that proof of prior DWI offenses is an element of felony DWI. We granted certiorari in his case to address two other issues: (1) whether the State adequately notified him of the particular prior DWI offenses that it intended to use against him, and (2) whether the trial court properly enhanced his sentence pursuant to the habitual offender statute.
{10} The sixth and final defendant, Martinez, pleaded guilty to DWI in 1994. At sentencing the trial court found that he had three prior DWI convictions under Section 66-8-102(G) and imposed an 18-month sentence. Martinez admitted to two prior felony convictions--battery on a peace officer (1988) and great bodily injury by vehicle (1986). The trial court suspended 1 year of the 18-month sentence and enhanced it by 4 years, resulting in a sentence of 4 1/2 years. Martinez did not file an appeal. He did, however, file a pro se habeas corpus petition in district court. This petition raised, inter alia, the same issue raised by Anaya, Gonzales, and Nakai--that a sentence resulting from a felony DWI conviction cannot be enhanced under the habitual offender statute. The district court granted Martinez partial relief but denied him relief on this ground. We issued a writ of certiorari and consolidated his case with the other appe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|