State v. Gonzales, 35,586

Defendant convicted by jury of aggravated DWI (fourth offense) and sentenced; appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
Defendant asserted a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation and later sought to amend his docketing statement to raise an Apprendi-based jury-trial challenge to enhanced sentencing for prior DWI convictions.
The Court issued a proposed summary disposition to affirm and explained Barker-factor analysis regarding speedy trial delay, then invited response; Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition and the motion to amend.
Defendant’s speedy-trial reply failed to provide a Barker-factor analysis or a particularized showing of prejudice beyond onerous bond conditions while awaiting trial.
Defendant’s proposed Apprendi claim was unpreserved; he argued the sentencing statute requires jury findings beyond the existence of prior convictions and urged state-constitutional protection.
The Court denied the motion to amend as not viable and affirmed the district court, concluding Defendant had not shown a speedy-trial violation and that prior-conviction sentencing enhancements fall within Apprendi’s exception.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy-trial violation under Barker	Delay did not amount to constitutional violation; no particularized prejudice shown	Delay and restrictive bond conditions prejudiced liberty and warranted reversal	No violation; Defendant failed to show particularized prejudice or that Barker factors weighed in his favor
Whether sentencing enhancement for prior DWI convictions requires jury factfinding under Apprendi	Prior-conviction exception applies; enhancement based on prior convictions does not require jury findings	Statute imposes enhanced sentence based on facts not found by a jury; Apprendi requires jury findings	Motion to amend denied as not viable; prior-conviction exception controls—no Apprendi error
Whether state constitution provides greater protection than federal Apprendi rule	State law does not compel a different rule absent preserved argument and controlling authority	Argues New Mexico Constitution guarantees jury finding beyond prior-conviction exception	Court found no authority or preserved error showing; decline to announce novel state-constitutional rule
Procedural viability of amending docketing statement to raise unpreserved issue	Amendment inappropriate where issue is not viable and unpreserved	Sought leave to amend to raise Apprendi-based claim	Motion to amend denied for failure to show viability and preservation

State v. Garza, 146 N.M. 499, 212 P.3d 387 (N.M. 2009) (requiring particularized prejudice where Barker factors do not strongly favor defendant)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (rule and prior-conviction exception to jury-trial requirement)
State v. Sandoval, 135 N.M. 420, 89 P.3d 92 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004) (rejecting Apprendi challenge to DWI enhancement based on prior convictions)
State v. Villegas, 145 N.M. 592, 203 P.3d 123 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (same principle applied to DWI-enhancement context)
State v. Barber, 135 N.M. 621, 92 P.3d 633 (N.M. 2004) (defining structural fundamental error and judicial-integrity standard)
State v. Rael, 100 N.M. 193, 668 P.2d 309 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983) (standards for amending docketing statements on summary calendar)
State v. Moore, 109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (motions to amend denied for nonviable issues)