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 convicted of felony possession of methamphetamine and failure to register as a sex offender. He was sentenced to three years of incarceration, which was suspended in favor of supervised probation. The Defendant admitted to a prior felony conviction and agreed that a violation of probation conditions would result in a felony enhancement. His probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to two years in prison, including one year as a habitual offender enhancement (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of San Juan County: The court revoked the Defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of approximately two years in prison, including a one-year habitual offender enhancement (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: The Defendant argued that his sentence for a probation violation based on drug addiction constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. He contended that he needed continued treatment for his addiction rather than incarceration (paras 2, 6).
- Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant's sentence for a probation violation based on drug addiction constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation and committing him to the Department of Corrections (para 8).
Reasons
Per Hanisee J. (Attrep C.J. and Wray J. concurring):
The Court found that the Defendant's sentence was authorized by statute and consistent with the plea agreement. The Defendant's argument that his sentence was cruel and unusual was not grounded in a claim that it was unauthorized by statute, making it nonjurisdictional and requiring proper preservation for appeal. The Defendant did not raise this claim in the district court nor moved to withdraw his plea. The Court noted that a statutorily lawful sentence generally does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The Court also stated that the opportunity for a mitigated sentence depends on the court's discretion, not on any entitlement of the Defendant. The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's reference to "evolving standards of decency" and proposed but unrealized legislative amendments (paras 3-7).