 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. House11/20/1997
err in refusing to suppress the results of Defendant's blood-alcohol test taken shortly after the accident.
{64} Defendant also argues that the district court should have suppressed subsequent blood-alcohol test results obtained pursuant to a search warrant because the search warrant affidavit was inadequate. We are inclined to believe that the search warrant affidavit was adequate for the reasons discussed in this Court's previous opinion in . In any event, because we have already held that the district court did not err in admitting the results from the blood-alcohol test taken immediately after the accident, Defendant was not prejudiced by admission of the subsequent blood-alcohol test results. ) (for error to be reversible it must be prejudicial).
C. Enhancement of Defendant's Sentence Based on a Prior DWI Conviction
{65} Defendant argues that his DWI sentence and his sentences for homicide by vehicle and great bodily injury by vehicle were improperly enhanced based on an uncounseled, prior 1987 DWI conviction. Even if Defendant is not convicted at a new trial on the multiple counts for homicide by vehicle and great bodily injury by vehicle, this issue still remains relevant because we have determined that Defendant's DWI conviction is affirmable. Accordingly, we address the merits of Defendant's arguments.
{66} An uncounseled misdemeanor DWI conviction can be used for enhancement purposes if the court finds that the defendant entered a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of counsel. See ), overruled in part on other grounds by , cert. granted, 122 N.M. 227, 923 P.2d 594 (1996). We may not presume a valid waiver of counsel based on a silent record. See . However, "`here there is some showing of affirmative waiver,'" the burden of proof rests on the defendant to prove that his or her waiver was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. (quoting )). The trial court then must determine whether the waiver of counsel is valid by examining the facts and circumstances of the case, including such factors as the complexity of the charges and the background, experience, and conduct of the accused. See
{67} Although the waiver of counsel form that Defendant signed in 1987 does not create an irrebuttable presumption that Defendant's waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the waiver form was sufficient to shift the burden onto Defendant to come forward and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his waiver of counsel at the 1987 proceeding was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. See
{68} Although Defendant did present evidence to support his claim that his waiver of counsel was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, there was contradictory evidence to rebut Defendant's claim. Under the circumstances, we affirm the district court's decision that Defendant's waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. See (signed, written waivers of counsel are prima facie evidence to rebut defendant's contradictory allegations and trial court is free to disbelieve defendant's allegations); see also
{69} Defendant also suggests that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Defendant relies on the recent case of , to suggest that the record in this case is inadequate to support the district court's Conclusion that his prior guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. We agree that Garcia recognizes that the record must reflect that the defendant understands the consequences of his guilty plea. . In this case, however, Defendant's specific challenge to the guilty plea is that the magistrate did not adequately explain
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|