State v. Benavidez, 35,544

Defendant Joseph Benavidez was convicted by a jury of trafficking a controlled substance and appealed his conviction and sentence enhancement.
After verdict but before the originally scheduled sentencing, the State filed a supplemental information seeking habitual-offender enhancement; Benavidez absconded and was later arrested before sentencing was rescheduled.
At the rescheduled sentencing hearing the State pursued habitual-offender enhancement; the defense did not provide written notice disputing prior convictions under Rule 5-509(A) nor present evidence challenging their validity.
Defendant argued on appeal (and by motion to amend the docketing statement) that the district court erred by not holding a separate habitual-offender hearing, failing to require the State to prove the prior felony, and denying him opportunity to contest the priors.
Defendant also challenged sufficiency of the evidence for identity, pointing to omissions in the officer’s report (e.g., not noting use of crutches), while the undercover officer testified in court and positively identified Defendant as the seller.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a separate habitual-offender proceeding was required	The State asserts enhancement may be raised at original sentencing and did so at the rescheduled hearing	Benavidez contends the court needed a separate hearing on the supplemental information	Court: No separate proceeding was required; enhancement may be addressed at sentencing
Whether State had to prove prior convictions at a separate hearing	State met prima facie burden at sentencing and the court addressed enhancement	Benavidez says the State never proved validity of the alleged prior felony and he lacked chance to contest it	Court: Requirements for prima facie showing apply, but record shows no failure; validity presumed absent timely defense challenge
Whether Defendant had to notify intent to attack prior convictions	State cites Rule 5-509(A) requiring written notice from defendant to contest priors	Benavidez argues he was not given opportunity to contest priors	Court: Defendant bore duty to notify and did not; without such notice priors are presumed valid
Sufficiency of the evidence on identity for trafficking conviction	The State relies on undercover officer’s in-court testimony and positive ID of Defendant	Benavidez points to omitted details in officer report (e.g., crutches) and argues identity was not proven	Court: Affirmed conviction; jury credibility determinations control and officer testimony was sufficient

State v. Diaz, 141 N.M. 223, 153 P.3d 57 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (habitual-offender proceedings may be separate from sentencing but need not be)
State v. Godoy, 284 P.3d 410 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (past convictions and prima facie proof supplied by State at sentencing)
State v. Elliott, 37 P.3d 107 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (at sentencing State must make prima facie case of prior valid felonies; defendant may rebut)
State v. Clements, 215 P.3d 54 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (sets three elements of prima facie showing and burden-shifting in habitual-offender proceedings)
State v. Duarte, 915 P.2d 309 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996) (validity of prior convictions is presumed until defendant produces evidence to show invalidity)
State v. Trujillo, 42 P.3d 814 (N.M. 2002) (appellate courts will not reweigh evidence; jury resolves credibility and factual inconsistencies)
State v. Castleman, 863 P.2d 1088 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993) (undercover officer’s testimony describing purchase can support trafficking conviction)
State v. Rojo, 971 P.2d 829 (N.M. 1999) (where record is doubtful or deficient, presumption favors regularity of trial court judgment)