State v. Tapia, 35,748

Background

Defendant's probation was revoked and he was sentenced as a habitual offender to eight years' imprisonment after a district court found probation violations and relied on four prior felony convictions for enhancement.
On appeal, Defendant challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence supporting the probation revocation and (2) sufficiency of proof of four prior felony convictions for habitual-offender enhancement.
This Court issued a proposed summary disposition to affirm and invited response; Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition and a motion to amend his docketing statement to add an unpreserved Sixth Amendment/Jury Trial claim under Apprendi.
The Court found Defendant failed to describe the State’s trial evidence in the appellate filings and therefore assumed the district court’s factual summaries in the notice were accurate.
The district court relied on identifiers in certified conviction documents and booking photos to link the prior convictions to Defendant; no fingerprint evidence or witness testimony was presented.
The Court denied Defendant’s motion to amend because the proposed Apprendi-based issue was not viable under controlling New Mexico precedent and affirmed the revocation and sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for probation revocation	State: presented sufficient evidence that Defendant was arrested for felony drug possession and failed to report it	Defendant: challenges sufficiency of evidence for the alleged probation violations	Affirmed — sufficient evidence to support revocation; one supported violation is enough
Sufficiency of proof of four prior felonies for enhancement	State: certified convictions with consistent identifiers and booking photos sufficiently established identity	Defendant: challenged the sufficiency, noting absence of fingerprints/witnesses	Affirmed — certified documents and identifiers were sufficient; absence of fingerprints/witnesses immaterial
Motion to amend docketing statement to raise Apprendi/Jury Trial claim	State/Court: relied on existing New Mexico precedent treating prior convictions as exception to Apprendi jury-trial requirement	Defendant: sought to argue habitual-offender statute required jury findings beyond existence of prior convictions under Apprendi and state constitution	Denied — claim not viable; Sandoval and related New Mexico precedent control
Fundamental error/state-constitutional argument	Defendant: argued broader state constitutional protection or that failure to recognize such claim sua sponte is fundamental error	Court: no authority showing sua sponte recognition of new state constitutional right is fundamental error; Sandoval reasoning not undermined	Denied — not shown to be structural/fundamental error; judicial integrity not undermined

Key Cases Cited

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (establishes rule limiting judicial factfinding that increases criminal sentences except for prior convictions)
State v. Leon, 292 P.3d 493 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (one supported probation violation suffices to affirm revocation)
State v. Clements, 215 P.3d 54 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (absence of fingerprints/witnesses significant only where judgments lack consistent identifying information)
State v. Sandoval, 89 P.3d 92 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004) (New Mexico precedent permitting sentence enhancement based on prior convictions without additional jury findings)
State v. Barber, 92 P.3d 633 (N.M. 2004) (defines structural fundamental error as process defects that undermine judicial integrity)