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 second-offense driving while under the influence (DWI) in magistrate court. He was initially convicted of first-offense DWI after a bench trial on stipulated facts. Upon appeal to the district court, he was convicted of third-offense DWI and sentenced accordingly (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- Magistrate Court: Convicted the Defendant of first-offense DWI.
- District Court: Convicted the Defendant of third-offense DWI after a de novo bench trial.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the district court's sentencing for third-offense DWI violated the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and New Mexico Constitutions, as he was initially convicted of first-offense DWI in magistrate court (paras 2-3).
- Plaintiff: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court violated the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy under the United States Constitution by sentencing him for third-offense DWI.
- Whether the district court violated the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy under the New Mexico Constitution by sentencing him for third-offense DWI.
- Whether the State failed to lay a sufficient record of the Defendant’s prior DWI convictions for appellate review.
Disposition
- The court affirmed the Defendant's conviction for third-offense DWI (para 24).
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Attrep and Henderson JJ. concurring):
The court found that the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy under the United States Constitution was not violated because first-offense DWI is not a lesser included offense of second-offense DWI under New Mexico law. Therefore, there was no implied acquittal of second-offense DWI (paras 5-12). The Defendant's argument under the New Mexico Constitution was deemed insufficiently developed, as he failed to adequately explain why an enhanced sentence should constitute a greater degree of the offense (paras 13-18). Lastly, the court did not address the argument regarding the incomplete record of prior convictions, as it was not preserved for appeal, was waived, and was undeveloped (paras 19-23).