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 charged with trafficking methamphetamine and admitted her identity to a prior felony offense of possession of methamphetamine. Following a guilty plea, the State did not pursue a habitual offender enhancement, and the district court suspended the Defendant's nine-year sentence, imposing a five-year probation term instead. The State later moved to revoke the Defendant's probation, alleging violations due to charges of aggravated driving while under the influence and child abuse, seeking to enhance the Defendant's sentence as a habitual offender. The district court revoked the Defendant's probation and sentenced her to the remaining balance of her original sentence.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the imposed sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 13 of the New Mexico Constitution. Acknowledged that the issue was unpreserved but contended it should be reviewed for fundamental error.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 13 of the New Mexico Constitution.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order revoking probation and imposing the Defendant's previously suspended sentence.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, Judge J. Miles Hanisee, and Judge Gerald E. Baca, concluded that the Defendant waived her right to challenge the constitutionality of her sentence on appeal by entering a guilty plea and waiving the right to appeal as part of the plea agreement. The Court found that a sentence authorized by statute, even if claimed to be cruel and unusual punishment, does not implicate the jurisdiction of the sentencing court and therefore may not be raised for the first time on appeal. The Defendant did not assert that her sentence was unauthorized by statute nor did she challenge the validity of her guilty plea. Based on these findings, the Court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding there was no fundamental error as the Defendant had affirmatively waived the constitutional right at issue (paras 1-5).