 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Begay1/4/2001
by Section 66-8-102(G) for sentencing purposes." Anaya, 1997- NMSC-010, 33. We then invited the Legislature to clarify its intention if it disagreed with our holding.
Though this case presents a slightly different question than the one we answered in Anaya, we believe that our analysis in Anaya controls the result in this case. As we previously stated, our holding in Anaya rested not on a concern that the Legislature did not intend to create two enhancements for the same crime, but rather a concern that the Legislature did not intend to have a fourth or subsequent DWI offense considered a felony for purposes of the habitual offender statute. In answering the question of whether a sentence for a felony DWI may be enhanced pursuant to the habitual offender statute, we held that the legislative intent to apply the habitual offender statute to the new felony created by Section 66-8-102(G) was uncertain. See Anaya, 1997- NMSC-010, at 32 ("We hold that an insurmountable ambiguity exists as to the intended scope of these criminal statutes . . . ."). The Legislature has not acted to clarify its intention regarding the relationship of the DWI and habitual offender statutes subsequent to our decision in Anaya. Therefore, legislative intent to have a fourth DWI felony conviction considered a felony for purposes other than providing a term of imprisonment greater than one year remains uncertain. Our rule of lenity requires that we construe the statute in favor of Defendants. See Ogden, 118 N.M. at 242, 880 P.2d at 853.
We also continue to believe that " he most plausible interpretation is that the egislature did not intend to punish fourth-time or more DWI offenders in the same manner as other fourth- degree felons." Id., 33; see also id., 31 ("Section 66-8-102 is completely silent with reference to the applicability of Section 31-18- 17 to the newly created fourth degree DWI felonies . . . and the egislature's silence on the matter more clearly indicates to us its intention not to apply the enhanced sentences."). We note that " t common law, no number of convictions for any misdemeanor or misdemeanors could ever add up to or become a felony." Id. Although "the egislature can make multiple convictions for misdemeanor DWI a felony, we do not agree that it intended to make this `new felony' a fourth degree felony for habitual offender sentencing purposes." Id. We therefore affirm the holdings of the Court of Appeals.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PAMELA B. MINZNER, Chief Justice
WE CONCUR:
JOSEPH F. BACA, Justice
GENE E. FRANCHINI, Justice
PATRICIO M. SERNA, Justice
PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Justice
|