State v. Yazzie, 410 P.3d 220

Background

In 2002 Yazzie pleaded no contest to third-degree aggravated battery (Count 1) and fourth-degree aggravated assault (Count 2) under a plea agreement that admitted multiple prior felonies and provided sentencing terms including an 8-year habitual-offender enhancement applied to Count 2 and a total sentence of 12.5 years with 3 years suspended.
The plea agreement and judgment/sentence were ambiguous as to which count the 3-year suspension applied to, but expressly preserved that if Yazzie was later placed on probation and violated it, an additional 8-year enhancement could be applied to Count 1.
Yazzie was released, served parole, and began a 3-year probationary term on March 19, 2011; the State moved to revoke probation on December 16, 2013 and filed a supplemental information in February 2014 charging habitual-offender status based on his earlier felonies.
At the revocation hearing the district court found Yazzie violated probation, denied his motion to preclude enhancement, and imposed an 8-year habitual-offender enhancement on Count 1 (suspending any remaining underlying time still being served).
Yazzie appealed, arguing (1) he had completed his sentence as to Count 1 and thus could not be enhanced at probation revocation, and (2) the 2002 amendment to the habitual-offender statute (limiting prior convictions to those with sentences/parole/probation completed within ten years) applied so older priors could not be considered.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the district court retained jurisdiction to enhance on probation revocation and the 2002 statutory amendment did not apply to a revocation-enhancement where the original sentencing predated the amendment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court could impose an additional 8-year habitual enhancement on Count 1 after probation violation	State: enhancement permitted under plea agreement and judgment; priors support enhancement	Yazzie: he had completed sentence/parole/probation as to Count 1 and thus had a reasonable expectation of finality; enhancement violates double jeopardy	The court held Yazzie had no reasonable expectation of finality while serving the 3-year probation; enhancement was permissible
Whether 2002 amendment to habitual-offender statute (limiting consideration of priors to those completed within 10 years) applied to the supplemental information filed in 2014	State: 2002 amendment does not limit enhancement here because original sentence and plea occurred before amendment and enhancement relates to original sentence	Yazzie: 2002 amendment should bar consideration of priors older than 10 years when the State filed supplemental information in 2014	The court held Ortega controls: because the original sentencing occurred before July 1, 2002 and the enhancement relates to that original sentence, the 2002 amendment did not apply; all priors could be considered

Key Cases Cited

State v. Lovato, 141 N.M. 508, 157 P.3d 73 (N.M. Ct. App.) (jurisdiction to enhance expires once sentence completed; double jeopardy principle)
State v. Villalobos, 126 N.M. 255, 968 P.2d 766 (N.M. 1998) (no reasonable expectation of finality while serving probation or parole)
State v. Ortega, 135 N.M. 737, 93 P.3d 758 (N.M. Ct. App.) (2002 amendment to habitual-offender statute does not apply to enhancement tied to an original sentence imposed before amendment)
State v. Shay, 136 N.M. 8, 94 P.3d 8 (N.M. Ct. App.) (2002 amendment applies when both sentencing and supplemental information occur after amendment effective date)
State v. Trujillo, 141 N.M. 451, 157 P.3d 16 (N.M. 2007) (defendant must show objectively reasonable expectation of finality to bar enhancement)