State v. Robertson-Little, 34,112

Background

Defendant (Caska Robertson-Little) was tried by jury and convicted of aggravated battery against a household member and false imprisonment arising from a June 20, 2012 assault; conviction date November 20, 2013.
District court orally sentenced Defendant to 12.5 years on August 25, 2014, but postponed entry of written judgment to allow the State to prove prior felonies for habitual-offender enhancement.
State alleged two prior felonies: (1) April 16, 2001 aggravated burglary/aggravated assault, and (2) November 4, 2009 felon-in-possession conviction (based on the 2001 predicate).
On September 29, 2014, the court enhanced Defendant’s sentence by 4 years on each count under the Habitual Offender statute (total +8 years).
Defendant appealed raising multiple claims: speedy-sentencing violation, double jeopardy/due process from reusing a prior predicate, exceeding the ten-year lookback for prior convictions, ineffective assistance of counsel (counsel allegedly intoxicated), prosecutorial misconduct, and alleged loss of jurisdiction from wrong case number at sentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy-trial/right to speedy sentencing	State: 10-month delay is below presumptively prejudicial threshold for simple cases	Defendant: 10-month delay between verdict and sentencing violated speedy-trial/right to speedy sentencing	Court: Not presumptively prejudicial under Barker/Garza (one year guideline); no further Barker analysis; claim fails
Double jeopardy / due process re using prior predicate	State: May use prior convictions to enhance sentence; prior felonies not used to prove current offense	Defendant: Reuse of 2001 predicate (already used to convict him in 2009 felon-in-possession) constitutes impermissible double use / double jeopardy	Court: Follows Yparrea — prior convictions used only for enhancement, not to prove the present offense; no double jeopardy or due process violation
Ten-year lookback for prior felony	State: 2001 conviction still qualifies because completion of probation/parole occurred within 10 years	Defendant: 2001 conviction is too old to count as a prior felony for enhancement	Court: Court found probation ended within 10 years; under §31-18-17(D)(1) court did not err and Defendant failed to preserve contrary proof
Ineffective assistance of counsel	State: No record support showing counsel was impaired or deficient	Defendant: Trial counsel was intoxicated and ineffective	Court: Defendant failed to cite record or develop argument; claim not supported and not reviewed further
Prosecutorial misconduct (references to multiple assaults)	State: Victim’s testimony described multiple distinct acts during single incident; prosecutorial statements track the record	Defendant: Prosecutor improperly argued multiple assaults, prejudicing jury	Court: Victim testified to multiple, evolving choking/biting incidents; statements not improper given testimony; claim inadequately developed
Jurisdiction / wrong case number at sentencing	State: Court called correct case number at start; Defendant didn’t object	Defendant: Court called wrong case number (D-101-CR-2012-00530 vs correct D-101-CR-2012-00630) so court lost jurisdiction	Court: Record shows correct number was called; no objection preserved; no basis for relief

Key Cases Cited

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (established the four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
State v. Garza, 146 N.M. 499 (New Mexico Supreme Court adopting/confirming Barker framework)
State v. Lujan, 345 P.3d 1103 (NMCA explanation of applying Barker factors and presumptive delay thresholds)
State v. Yparrea, 114 N.M. 805 (NMCA holding that prior convictions used solely for enhancement may be reused without violating double jeopardy)
State v. Haddenham, 110 N.M. 149 (discussed in relation to limits on reusing a predicate felony; distinguished by Yparrea)