State v. Redhouse
1 N.M. Ct. App. 48
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Shirley Redhouse’s 1972 uncounseled DWI conviction was used to enhance her current DWI conviction; the district court initially refused to count the 1972 and 1973 priors for enhancement but sentenced based on two priors in 2009.
- The State moved for reconsideration within 30 days of the judgment (Dec 9, 2009).
- The district court initially deemed the 1972 conviction ineligible for enhancement due to lack of counsel, but later ruled it could be used for enhancement after reconsideration.
- The district court amended the judgment (Dec 3, 2009) to convict her of a fourth DWI and imposed additional jail time (71 days) beyond the original sentence.
- Defendant argued that finality of the December 3, 2009 sentence prevented any revision and that imposing imprisonment based on the 1972 conviction violated double jeopardy.
- The State timely sought reconsideration, arguing the district court had made a legal error about whether the 1972 conviction could be used for enhancement and did not introduce new evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy bars reconsideration of the sentence | State argues finality did not attach; timely motion preserved the issue | Defendant contends finality prevented any increase after serving sentence | No violation; State timely sought reconsideration and sentence could be amended |
| Whether the 1972 uncounseled conviction could be used to enhance the current DWI | State; 1972 conviction valid for enhancement despite uncounseled status | Defendant; 1972 conviction should not count since no jail sentence was imposed | Valid for enhancement because 1972 conviction resulted in a fine (no imprisonment) and thus could be used |
| Whether Diaz controls the outcome | Diaz prevents post-sentencing reliance on an undiscovered conviction | Diaz is distinguishable; circumstances differ | Diaz distinguished; not controlling here |
| Whether the State had the right to appeal and seek reconsideration | State could appeal legal determinations and request reconsideration | Not explicitly in issue | State had right to appeal and request reconsideration under applicable statute and case law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Diaz, 141 N.M. 223, 153 P.3d 57 (2007-NMCA-026) (discusses timing of evidence and post-sentencing enhancements for DWI)
- State v. Porras, 126 N.M. 628, 973 P.2d 880 (1999-NMCA-016) (exemption to finality for illegal or improper sentences; habitual offender context)
- State v. Horton, 144 N.M. 71, 183 P.3d 956 (2008-NMCA-061) (state right to appeal and challenge legal determinations)
- State v. Tave, 141 N.M. 571, 158 P.3d 1014 (2007-NMCA-059) (state may raise legal issues on appeal regarding enhancement decisions)
- State v. Woodruff, 124 N.M. 388, 951 P.2d 605 (1997-NMSC-061) (uncounseled misdemeanor DWI not enhancing where no imprisonment in prior conviction)