 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Woodruff11/21/1997
MINZNER, Justice.
{1} Defendant Lonnie Woodruff appeals from a judgment and sentence entered after his conviction by a jury of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI) contrary to NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102 (1994, prior to 1997 amendment). On appeal, he contends he was denied due process of law under the New Mexico Constitution when the district court enhanced his sentence from a first offense to a second offense as a result of a prior conviction for which he was not represented by counsel. We affirm.
I.
{2} Following Woodruff's conviction, the State filed a supplemental criminal information. In that supplemental information, the State alleged that Woodruff had two prior convictions for DWI. Defendant admitted that he was the person named in the two counts of the supplemental information. However, he challenged one of the convictions on the basis that the State failed to show he had waived his right to counsel and that he had not been represented by counsel at the time of the challenged conviction.
{3} The district court found that the conviction Woodruff challenged had resulted in a fine. The court ruled that the challenged conviction was valid for purposes of enhancing Woodruff's most recent conviction because the prior conviction had not resulted in a term of imprisonment. The court also ruled that the second conviction contained in the supplemental information was entered after the most recent conviction.
{4} The court enhanced Woodruff's current conviction to a second offense of DWI. Under Section 66-8-102(F), the enhancement increased the maximum incarceration from ninety days to 364. Under Section 66-8-102(F)(1), the enhancement resulted in a mandatory jail term of not less than seventy-two hours.
{5} Woodruff objected to the use of his prior conviction on the ground the State had not shown a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of counsel. ); ), overruled in part by , aff'd, 1997 NMSC 063, N.M. , P.2d . The trial court ruled that, in deciding Watchman and Russell, the Court of Appeals had relied on authority that depended on the effect of Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 64 L. Ed. 2d 169, 100 S. Ct. 1585 (1980), and the trial court noted that the United States Supreme Court recently overruled Baldasar in Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 128 L. Ed. 2d 745, 114 S. Ct. 1921 (1994). In Nichols, the United States Supreme Court held that a prior uncounseled conviction could be used to enhance a subsequent conviction, even if the defendant had not waived his right to counsel in connection with the prior conviction, provided the prior conviction did not result in a sentence of imprisonment. Under Nichols, the trial court held that using Woodruff's prior uncounseled conviction did not deny him due process as a matter of federal constitutional law.
{6} The New Mexico Court of Appeals recently reached that same result in reviewing similar facts on direct appeal. See , P18. In Hosteen, however, the Court of Appeals did not reach the question of whether, as a matter of state constitutional law, a prior uncounseled conviction that did not result in a sentence of imprisonment may be used to enhance a current conviction so that it results in a sentence of imprisonment. Id. PP19-20. The Court of Appeals did not reach that issue because neither party had briefed it on appeal. Woodruff argues that question now.
II.
{7} Woodruff contends that, as a matter of due process under the New Mexico Constitution, the court should not have used his prior uncounseled conviction to enhance his current conviction to a second offense. He contends that such a conviction is inherently unr
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|