 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. House1/4/2001
In this appeal, Gordon House (Defendant) appeals from the sentence imposed upon remand, arising from the incident of Christmas Eve 1992. Previously, our Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions. See State v. House, 1999-NMSC-014, 127 N.M. 151, 978 P.2d 967. Pursuant to the State's concession before this Court, the matter was then remanded for reformation of the sentence. Defendant now challenges his re- sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On Christmas Eve 1992, Defendant drove his vehicle the wrong way onto Interstate 40 (I-40); that is, he entered the highway driving east in the west-bound lane. Other travelers, including a police officer, noted Defendant's vehicle traveling in this manner at a high rate of speed. Defendant collided with another vehicle, killing a mother and her three children, and leaving the father grievously injured.
Officers on the scene concluded, in addition to his reckless driving, that Defendant had been drinking that evening, such that it impaired his ability to operate a motor vehicle. They arrested him, and he was subsequently tried on four counts of DWI-related vehicular homicide, four counts of reckless-driving-related vehicular homicide, one count of DWI-related grievous bodily injury with a motor vehicle, and one count of reckless-driving-related grievous bodily injury with a motor vehicle.
The State charged the DWI-related and reckless-driving-related theories in the alternative. That is, after pleading each of the DWI- related counts, the State pled, "OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE: VEHICULAR HOMICIDE (RECKLESS DRIVING)" and "OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE: GREAT BODILY INJURY BY VEHICLE (RECKLESS [DRIVING])." Similarly, the jury was instructed on the theories as alternatives, the DWI-related charges being prioritized.
The jury convicted Defendant on each of these counts, and the district court imposed a sentence of three years on one count of grievous bodily injury with a motor vehicle and three years each on eight counts of vehicular homicide , four based upon a driving- while-intoxicated (DWI) theory, and four upon a reckless-driving theory. While retaining the redundant convictions-in violation of Defendant's protections against double jeopardy, see State v. Landgraf, 1996-NMCA- 024, 38, 121 N.M. 445, 913 P.2d 252-the district court imposed concurrent sentences on the alternate vehicular homicide theories. Finally, in light of Defendant's prior misdemeanor DWI conviction, the district court imposed a ten-year enhancement in accordance with NMSA 1978, § 66-8-101(D) (1991); that is, one two-year enhancement for each DWI-related vehicular homicide conviction. Defendant thus received a total sentence of twenty-five years.
As noted above, Defendant previously sought reversal of his convictions and sentence in New Mexico's appellate courts alleging seven claims of error: (1) error in the transfer of venue; (2) error in the make-up of the jury; (3) error in the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss after two mistrials; (4) error in using his prior DWI conviction to enhance his sentence; (5) error upon the retention of and sentencing upon alternative counts for each homicide and injury; (6) error on various matters within the discretion of the trial court; and (7) error regarding the role of the Navajo Nation in his trial. Notably, the State conceded error regarding entry of the eight homicide convictions and sentences during proceedings before this Court and, in response, Defendant moved "this court to vacate the four NMSA 1978[,] § 66-8-101(a) (reckless driving) convictions as constitutionally infirm. Additionally[,] efend
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|