State v. Miller
1 N.M. Ct. App. 658
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Andrew Miller faced 61 charges arising from allegedly fraudulent funds obtained from Victim Roberta Beale; plea agreement capped exposure and limited some ancillary issues.
- Two district court cases were consolidated: one for fraud/embezzlement (35 counts) and another for fraud/forgery (26 counts), producing a combined potential sentence exceeding 250 years.
- Plea agreement: minimum 10 years, maximum 40 years at initial sentencing, plus two years of potential exposure to run concurrently with parole; some vehicles purchased with victim funds were to be forfeited.
- The district court accepted the plea but sentenced Miller to 42 years with nine years suspended, plus two years of parole and five years of probation, exceeding the plea cap.
- Miller moved to withdraw his plea after sentencing, arguing the State failed to fulfill the plea terms, including visitation rights; the district court and appellate court addressed whether the plea was for a specific sentence and whether the sentence violated the cap.
- This appellate panel ultimately held that the district court violated the plea by imposing a 42-year sentence, reversing the denial of Miller’s motion to withdraw and remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea was for a specific sentence or a recommendation. | Miller—State promised a concrete sentence within the cap. | State failed to enforce the exact sentence promised. | Yes; the plea was for a specific sentence and must be enforced. |
| Whether a 42-year sentence violated the plea cap of 40 years. | Forty-two years could be within the cap due to initial sentencing language. | Cap applied to total sentence, not initial incarceration. | Forty-two years exceeded the cap; violates the plea agreement. |
| What remedy follows when the court breaches a plea by imposing a higher sentence. | Remedy should enforce the sentence or allow withdrawal. | Alternative remedies possible but must honor the plea. | Defendant entitled to withdrawal or re-sentencing consistent with the plea. |
| Effect of ambiguities in the handwritten clause after the cap. | Ambiguity could justify the 42-year sentence. | Ambiguity should be resolved against the State; cap stands. | Ambiguity resolved in Miller’s favor; the 42-year sentence invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (promises at plea bargaining must be fulfilled; breach permits withdrawal or re-sentencing)
- State v. Pieri, 146 N.M. 155, 207 P.3d 1132 (2009-NMSC-019) (distinguishes between specific-sentence and recommendation-based plea agreements)
- Gomez v. State, 151 N.M. 67, 267 P.3d 831 (2011-NMCA-120) (ambiguous plea terms construed in defendant's favor; require enforcement of clear terms)
- State v. Mares, 146 N.M. 155, 207 P.3d 1132 (1994) (plea agreements must be enforced; discretion constrained by the agreement)
- State v. Bencomo, 109 N.M. 724, 790 P.2d 521 (Ct.App.1990) (sentence recommendations in plea agreements may be a basis for abuse of discretion)