 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hosteen11/21/1997
teen, 1996 NMCA 084, PP3-5.) We conclude that the argument that the State failed in its burden of proof has been waived. We also conclude that we have an inadequate record to review for ineffective assistance of counsel. See id. On this record, Hosteen has not established a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel in this Court regarding the 1981 conviction. See .
{6} Hosteen also argues that the district court erred in relying on the 1980 conviction to enhance his current conviction from a misdemeanor to a felony, pursuant to Section 66-8-102(G), because the record does not show either that he had counsel or that he waived counsel. He contends that under the New Mexico Constitution he was denied due process. Today we have decided that no independent state constitutional ground for precluding the use of a prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction has been established. , P37, 1997 N.M. LEXIS 475, *37, N.M. , P.2d . We apply that holding to this case. Cf. , (applying "existing law to a pending case" in the context of certiorari taken for "possible consolidation").
{7} In this case, the record does not indicate whether the 1980 conviction resulted in a term of imprisonment. However, the docketing statement recites that the court's order found Defendant "guilty of DWI and other offenses . . . but did not impose any period of incarceration." We may accept the docketing statement as a correct statement of the facts. See . In this case, the docketing statement recites facts that explain, and are consistent with, the exhibits that are all part of the record proper. We therefore rely on the docketing statement to supplement the record proper. In view of our Disposition in Woodruff, we conclude that the district court correctly relied on the 1980 conviction to enhance Hosteen's current conviction.
{8} For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the judgment and sentence of the district court should be affirmed. We therefore affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
{9} IT IS SO ORDERED.
PAMELA B. MINZNER, Justice
WE CONCUR:
GENE E. FRANCHINI, Chief Justice
JOSEPH F. BACA, Justice
PATRICIO M. SERNA, Justice
DAN A. McKINNON, III, Justice
|