Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Decision Information

Citations - New Mexico Laws and Court Rules
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,435 documents

Decision Content

STATE V. WHITEHEAD

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.  Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.  Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM WHITEHEAD,
Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. A-1-CA-37425

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

April 29, 2019

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY, Drew D. Tatum, District Judge

COUNSEL

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Eran S. Sharon, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Santa Fe, NM, Steven James Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender, Albuquerque, NM for Appellant.

JUDGES

LINDA M. VANZI, Judge. WE CONCUR:  M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge, JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge

AUTHOR: LINDA M. VANZI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VANZI, Judge.

{1}       William Whitehead (Defendant) appeals from his sentencing as a five-time driving while intoxicated (DWI) offender. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence as a five-time offender, where the evidence that the State presented to establish Defendant’s identity for two of the prior convictions was insufficient, because the only evidence that contained specific identifiers linking Defendant to those priors was an inadmissible printout from an unidentified source. This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to reverse. In response, the State has filed a notice of its intent not to file a memorandum in opposition to our notice of proposed disposition.

{2}       Accordingly, we rely on the reasoning contained in our notice of proposed disposition and we reverse the sentence imposed and remand for sentencing consistent with this Court’s notice of proposed disposition.

{3}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

WE CONCUR:

M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.