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 was sentenced as a habitual offender. The district court later amended his judgment and sentence by substituting an unusable prior felony with a different prior felony for habitual offender enhancement purposes (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, John A. Dean, Jr., District Judge, December 11, 2014.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the use of the substituted prior felony for sentence enhancement and that enhancing his sentence based on a prior felony not alleged at the time of his 2012 sentencing was improper (paras 2, 4).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the sentence enhancement was permissible and supported by sufficient evidence, and that the enhancement could be sought at any time following conviction as long as it was imposed before the defendant completed his term of incarceration and any subsequent parole or probation (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the district court’s determination that the substituted prior felony could be used to enhance the Defendant's sentence.
• Whether the enhancement of the Defendant's sentence based on a prior felony not alleged at the time of his 2012 sentencing was proper.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order amending the Defendant's judgment and sentence for habitual offender enhancement purposes (para 5).

Reasons

• Per Linda M. Vanzi, J., with Timothy L. Garcia, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring: The Court found the Defendant's arguments unpersuasive. It held that the district court, as the fact finder, was entitled to resolve conflicts in evidence in favor of the State and that the Defendant failed to specifically articulate how the district court’s calculations were incorrect. The Court also noted that the State could seek to enhance a sentence at any time following conviction, as long as it was before the completion of the defendant's term of incarceration and any subsequent parole or probation, meaning the Defendant could not have had a reasonable expectation of finality regarding his original sentence. The Court declined to further address arguments under State v. Franklin and its progeny, as they were already considered in the notice of proposed disposition (paras 3-4).