State v. Johnson, A-1-CA-35961

Defendant Waylon Johnson appealed the use of a prior municipal aggravated DWI conviction to enhance his sentence in a later case.
The municipal court Final Order contained the notation: "Plea Agreement Asst City Atty A. Bell & Public Defender." A separate probation-violation order included a signed waiver-of-counsel form.
Johnson argued the Final Order did not prove he was represented by counsel or waived counsel at the plea, because no written waiver or attorney entry appeared in that file.
The district court reviewed the municipal file, noted no written plea agreement in the pleadings, and took judicial notice that Farmington provides a public defender in municipal court and that the notation "Public Defender" denotes a licensed attorney.
The State relied on the municipal court records to prove the prior conviction by a preponderance of the evidence; Johnson offered no contrary testimony or evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved the prior aggravated DWI conviction was valid for sentence enhancement	State: municipal court record and notation showing a plea and public defender suffice to prove prior conviction by a preponderance	Johnson: Final Order did not show counsel or a waiver; no plea agreement attached; therefore conviction not proven as counseled plea	Court: Affirmed — State met preponderance standard; notation and records sufficed and defendant offered no contrary evidence

Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 111 N.M. 6 (N.M. 1990) (appellant bears burden to clearly show trial court error)
Hennessy v. Duryea, 124 N.M. 754 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (in summary calendar cases, party opposing disposition must point out errors in fact or law)
State v. Bullcoming, 144 N.M. 546 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (defendant may present contrary evidence once state presents prima facie case; preponderance standard for prior-conviction proof)
State v. Sedillo, 130 N.M. 98 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (when reviewing prior-conviction proof for enhancement, view evidence in light most favorable to state; only preponderance required)