State v. Redhouse
269 P.3d 8
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Shirley Redhouse was convicted of aggravated DWI in 2009, with sentencing on the same day.
- The State sought to enhance the 2009 DWI by four prior DWI convictions, including a contested 1972 conviction and a 1973 conviction.
- The district court initially ruled that the 1972 and 1973 convictions could not be used for enhancement because no counsel was involved in 1972, but it counted them as punishments.
- The State moved for reconsideration within 30 days of judgment; after several hearings, the court amended the sentence to reflect a fourth DWI under a DWI enhancement statute.
- The 1972 conviction was uncounseled; the district court found 1972 involved a fine but no jail sentence; the 1973 conviction remained non-usable for enhancement at first.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy barred modifying the sentence after it began | State argued no finality bar due to expeditious reconsideration | Redhouse argued finality and double jeopardy protections | No double jeopardy violation; defendant had no reasonable expectation of finality under the circumstances |
| Whether the 1972 uncounseled DWI could be used to enhance the current DWI | State contends 1972 valid for enhancement | Redhouse contends 1972 should not enhance due to lack of counsel and no jail | 1972 conviction valid for enhancement because it resulted in a fine and no imprisonment, despite uncounseled status |
| Whether the State timely sought reconsideration to preserve appeal rights | State timely sought reconsideration within 30 days | Not explicitly stated separately in the record | Timely reconsideration allowed; did not violate finality considerations |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Woodruff, 124 N.M. 388 (NMSC 1997) (uncounseled misdemeanor DWI not enhancing to imprisonment constitutional unless imprisonment occurred)
- State v. Porras, 126 N.M. 628 (NMCA 1999) (exceptions to finality for enhancing sentences; habitual offender principles)
- State v. Freed, 121 N.M. 569 (NMCA 1996) (habitual offender sentence can be enhanced before expiration of underlying sentence)
- March v. State, 782 P.2d 82 (N.M. 1989) (double jeopardy concerns in sentencing if finality violated)
- State v. Diaz, 141 N.M. 223 (NMCA 2007) (prosecution burden to prove prior DWI convictions at original sentencing")