 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hosteen11/21/1997
MINZNER, Justice.
{1} Defendant Taft Hosteen appeals from a judgment and sentence entered following a plea agreement and a hearing at which the district court found the State had proved three prior convictions for driving while intoxicated contrary to NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102 (1997) (felony DWI). In a plea agreement, Hosteen pleaded guilty, in the alternative, to a single charge of felony DWI or, if the State was unable to prove three prior convictions, to misdemeanor DWI under Section 66-8-102, and one count of failure to maintain a traffic lane contrary to NMSA 1978, § 66-7-317(A)(1978). The district court then found the State had proved three prior convictions and sentenced Hosteen to eighteen months; however, the court credited him with the time he had served (153 days) and placed him on probation for the balance of the term of imprisonment, plus one year.
{2} On direct appeal to the Court of Appeals, Hosteen argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. See State v. Hosteen, 1996 NMCA 084, P, cert. granted, 122 N.M. 227, 923 P.2d 594 (1996). He also argued against the application of Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 128 L. Ed. 2d 745, 114 S. Ct. 1921 (1994). Hosteen, 1996 NMCA 084, ("Defendant argues that the Nichols holding is limited to allowing an uncounseled prior conviction to be considered during the sentencing phase of a criminal prosecution, and it is not to be used in considering whether a misdemeanor should be converted to a felony."). The Court of Appeals rejected both arguments. Id. P19. Because Hosteen expressly limited his argument to the application of Nichols, the Court of Appeals determined that the issue of whether the New Mexico Constitution affords more protection than does the United States Constitution had been abandoned and consequently the
Court of Appeals did not address that issue in its opinion.
Id. . The Court of Appeals affirmed Hosteen's conviction and sentence for felony DWI, pursuant to Section 66-8-102(G).
{3} Hosteen appealed to this Court. We initially denied certiorari. On motion for reconsideration, we withdrew our order denying certiorari, granted certiorari on the issue the Court of Appeals had not addressed, and consolidated this case with , which appeared to raise a common issue or issues. We subsequently decided Gonzales raised an issue that merited separate consideration. This case also raises issues that merit separate consideration.
{4} On appeal to this Court, Hosteen argues that the district court denied his state constitutional right to due process when the court relied on two prior convictions--one in 1981, one in 1980--for which he lacked counsel. The 1981 conviction resulted in a sentence of imprisonment. Under Nichols, use of that conviction to enhance Hosteen's current conviction would deny him due process guaranteed by the federal constitution, see , P12, unless he had waived his right to counsel. In Gonzales, we decided that a prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction could be used to enhance a subsequent conviction, provided the prior conviction did not result in a sentence of imprisonment or, if it had resulted in a sentence of imprisonment, the right to counsel had been validly waived. , P12. Hosteen concedes on appeal that his counsel stipulated to the use of the 1981 conviction.
{5} Nevertheless, Hosteen argues that the State failed to establish the validity of the waiver of counsel that appeared in the record and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to challenge its use to enhance his current conviction. (This contention is similar to the argument made to the Court of Appeals regarding the 1980 conviction. Hos
Page 1 2 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|