 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Lara7/13/2000
Defendant appeals from the trial court's Order for Unsatisfactory Discharge from Probation (Order). The issue raised by Defendant's appeal is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the Order after the expiration of the probationary period without a prior revocation of probation. We reverse.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI), second or subsequent offense. He entered a no contest plea to the charge and was sentenced to 364 days in the county jail, which was suspended except for time served. Defendant was placed on probation for the remainder of time, which was due to expire March 9, 1999.
While on probation for the DWI charge, Defendant pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. After learning that Defendant had been arrested and convicted on separate charges, the State filed a Motion for Unsatisfactory Discharge from Probation on February 17, 1999. Prior to the expiration of Defendant's probation term, the trial court ordered Defendant to appear for a hearing on the completion of his probation. On March 15, 1999, following the expiration of Defendant's probation term, the trial court entered its Order finding Defendant had unsatisfactorily completed his probation. Defendant appeals from the Order.
DISCUSSION
Both parties agree that the trial court's authority in this matter is governed by NMSA 1978, § 31-20-8 (1977). It provides:
Whenever the period of suspension expires without revocation of the order, the defendant is relieved of any obligations imposed on him by the order of the court and has satisfied his criminal liability for the crime. He shall thereupon be entitled to a certificate from the court so reciting such facts, and upon presenting the same to the governor, the defendant may, in the discretion of the governor, be granted a pardon or a certificate restoring such person to full rights of citizenship.
"Interpretation of a statute is an issue of law, not a question of fact. We review questions of law de novo." State v. Rowell, 121 N.M. 111, 114, 908 P.2d 1379, 1382 (1995) (citations omitted).
Defendant argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose a sanction, to order him to appear in court, or to rule on the nature of his compliance with the conditions of his probation, after the term of probation expired. He contends his probation term expired without a revocation of the order of probation, and he was entitled to the issuance of a certificate under the statute. Defendant asserts the trial court's jurisdiction under the statute is limited to a ministerial review of the file to determine if a revocation has occurred. Thus, if a revocation of the order of probation has not occurred, the trial court must issue a certificate under the mandatory language of the statute.
When interpreting a statute, we bear in mind that
he main goal of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. To do this, we look to the object the legislature sought to accomplish and the wrong it sought to remedy. The words of a statute . . . should be given their ordinary meaning, absent clear and express legislative intention to the contrary. Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Section 31-20-8 provides that a defendant is relieved of any court imposed obligations and has satisfied his criminal liability for the crime " henever the period of suspension expires without revocation of the order." "This court has construed identical language in NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-9 (Repl. Pamp. 1981), relating to deferred sentences, as terminating the court's authority to revok
Page 1 2 3 4 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|