State v. Soutar, 272 P.3d 154

Defendant Soutar was convicted of multiple New Mexico Securities Act offenses and one count of racketeering related to Santa Fe Market LLC and its Market operations.
He entered into a plea agreement in 2006 with restitution obligations, including a lump-sum payment, which the court orally sentenced.
The State sought withdrawal of the plea after Soutar failed to make the lump-sum restitution as anticipated during negotiations.
The district court withdrew the plea and ordered Soutar to stand trial, leading to a trial on remaining charges.
The court later convicted Soutar on racketeering and securities counts and imposed a lengthy sentence, with multiple counts and a habitual-offender enhancement.
The central issues concern double jeopardy, withdrawal of the plea, jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, and admissibility of prior bad acts evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether double jeopardy barred retrial after withdrawal of the plea.	State asserts no final judgment; jeopardy did not attach to oral sentence.	Soutar contends the oral sentence was final and binding, precluding retrial.	Double jeopardy did not preclude retrial; oral sentence not final.
Whether the court abused its discretion by withdrawing the plea.	Withdrawal was warranted due to nonperformance of restitution.	Plea terms were not violated; court overstepped.	Court did not abuse discretion in withdrawing the plea.
Whether the district court erred in denying proposed jury instructions on securities definitions.	State relied on uniform jury instruction; definitions were proper.	Defendant's instructional definitions were necessary and clarifying.	No reversible error; court did not err in denying the proposed security-definitions instruction.
Whether there was sufficiency of evidence for the securities and racketeering convictions.	Evidence supported the securities and racketeering elements.	Challenge to sufficiency of securities proof and enterprise theory.	Sufficiency supported; enterprise existence and related elements established.
Whether admission of prior bad acts evidence violated Rule 11-404(B).	Evidence admitted to prove elements and intent.	Evidence too remote; evidence of prior convictions improperly admitted.	Defendant failed to adequately develop the claim; no reversible error.

State v. Porras, 126 N.M. 628, 973 P.2d 880 (1999-NMCA-016) (finality of plea-based sentencing and related expectations; not directly applicable here)
State v. Lohberger, 144 N.M. 297, 187 P.3d 162 (2008-NMSC-033) (oral sentence not final; no double jeopardy attachment)
State v. Rushing, 103 N.M. 333, 706 P.2d 875 (Ct. App. 1985) (oral sentence not final until written; no final jeopardy)
State v. Skippings, 150 N.M. 216, 258 P.3d 1008 (2011-NMSC-021) (entitlement to instruction on theory of the case; evidence supporting exemption issue)
Howey v. SEC, 328 U.S. 293 (1946) (investor-contract test and how to define security (federal act context))
State v. Mares, 119 N.M. 48, 888 P.2d 930 (1994) (interpretation of plea terms and restitution under plea agreements)
State v. Bar, 135 N.M. 621, 92 P.3d 633 (2004-NMSC-019) (avoidance of misleading jury instructions; caution on scope)
State v. Sheets, 94 N.M. 356, 610 P.2d 760 (Ct. App. 1980) (broad construction of securities definition; context importance)