State v. MATTON, 163 N.H. 411

Defendant Daniel Matton was convicted of arson in 1998 and received a suspended sentence with probation.
In 1999, probation violation led to an additional prison term (three-and-a-half to seven years).
In 2002, he was convicted of assault by a prisoner and sentenced to 1.5 to 3 years in prison.
On December 13, 2010, Matton pleaded guilty to second-degree assault; the State sought an extended term under RSA 651:6, II(a) based on prior imprisonments.
Matton moved to preclude the extended-term clause arguing only one qualifying prior conviction; the Superior Court denied the motion, finding two prior imprisonments.
Matton appealed, arguing ambiguity under RSA 651:6, II(a) and constitutional vagueness; the State argued the two imprisonments requirement was satisfied by his two prior imprisonments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RSA 651:6, II(a) is ambiguous.	State asserts language aligns with Apprendi-era intent.	Matton contends phrases are ambiguous, needing rule of lenity.	Ambiguity rejected; statute construed with legislative intent.
Whether RSA 651:6, II(a) requires twice imprisoned for an extended term.	State relies on two prior imprisonments from convictions.	Matton argues suspended sentences without imprisonment do not count.	Two imprisonments satisfy the statute; extended term permissible.
Whether Matton’s vagueness challenge was preserved.	N/A	Vagueness not properly preserved since not raised below.	Not preserved for review.

State v. Dansereau, 157 N.H. 596 (2008) (construction of 'convicted ... on sentences' and Apprendi-aligned amendments)
State v. Hammell, 147 N.H. 313 (2001) (pre-2003 understanding of imprisonment under RSA 651:6)
State v. Scognamiglio, 150 N.H. 534 (2004) (interpretation of imprisonment/sentences under statute)
State v. Beauchemin, 161 N.H. 654 (2011) (statutory interpretation of RSA 651:6, II(a) as final arbiter of legislative intent)