AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant pleaded guilty in 2015 to trafficking and distribution, with an admission of identity to two prior felonies. Initially, the State sought to enhance his sentence with one of the two prior felonies. Upon revocation of his probation, the State aimed for a four-year enhancement for each felony, based on both prior felonies, with credit for any time served under the additional enhancement. The district court, however, ruled that the State had "used up" the first felony in the initial sentence, allowing only an additional year each for the enhancements upon re-sentencing (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge: Revoked Defendant's probation and re-sentenced him, limiting the enhancement period due to prior felony use.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued for a four-year enhancement for each felony upon probation revocation, based on the use of both prior felonies (para 2).
• Defendant-Appellee: Opposed the State's proposal for a four-year enhancement for each felony, arguing that the State had already "used up" one prior felony in the initial sentencing, which should limit the enhancement period upon re-sentencing (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State's use of only a single prior felony in the original sentence precludes it from using that same prior felony for purposes of seeking a greater enhancement in the second sentence (para 3).
• Whether double jeopardy law evolution since State v. Freed, 1996-NMCA-044, affects the permissibility of using one prior act for multiple enhancements (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order and remanded for re-sentencing, allowing for a four-year enhancement for each felony based on the use of both prior felonies (para 5).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The Court relied on State v. Freed, 1996-NMCA-044, to conclude that the State's use of a single prior felony in the original sentence did not preclude it from using that same prior felony for a greater enhancement in the second sentence. The Court observed that the second judgment supersedes the original judgment, and therefore all prior felonies charged by the state control the period of enhancement. The Court declined to depart from Freed and the New Mexico Supreme Court precedent, noting no statutory change indicating a shift in legislative intent regarding the issue of double jeopardy and the use of prior felonies for sentence enhancement (paras 3-5).