State v. BarelaState v. Barela
OPINION
BACON, Justice.
{1} This case asks us to decide whether a sentence can be enhanced under the Habitual Offender Act,1
I. BACKGROUND
{2} Defendant was convicted of felony battery against a household member after battering the mother of his child and other crimes. Prior to trial, Defendant pleaded guilty to battery against a household member and proceeded to sentencing. As this was Defendant‘s third conviction of battery against a household member, the district court enhanced his conviction to a fourth-degree felony under
{3} Recognizing this holding in Anaya, the Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, distinguished felony battery against a household member from felony DWI and held that the enhanced conviction of felony battery against a household member under
{4} Agreeing with the result, but not necessarily the reasoning, we affirm the Court of Appeals and hold that felony battery against a household member can serve as an underlying felony for purposes of applying the Habitual Offender Act. This conclusion is premised on (1) the plain language of the statutes at issue and (2) our rejection of Defendant‘s argument that Anaya‘s holding precludes application of the Habitual Offender Act when one of the underlying convictions is felony battery against a household member.
II. DISCUSSION
A. The Plain Language of Sections 30-3-17(A) and 31-18-17 Does Not Preclude Their Simultaneous Application
1. Standard of review
{5} This case presents an issue of statutory construction, which we review de novo. See State v. Tafoya, 2010-NMSC-019, ¶ 9, 148 N.M. 391, 237 P.3d 693 (“When an appeal presents an issue of statutory construction, our review is de novo.“). Through such construction, our duty is to facilitate the intent and purpose of the Legislature. State v. Smith, 2004-NMSC-032, ¶ 8, 136 N.M. 372, 98 P.3d 1022.
2. Sections 30-3-17(A) and 31-18-17 are unambiguous and can apply simultaneously
{7} “Battery against a household member,”
{8} The Habitual Offender Act states, in pertinent part, that
[a] person convicted of a noncapital felony in this state whether within the Criminal Code or the Controlled Substances Act or not who has incurred one prior felony conviction that was part of a separate transaction or occurrence is a habitual offender and his basic sentence shall be increased by one year.
{9} Defendant argues that the Legislature‘s silence as to the Habitual Offender Act‘s applicability to felony battery against a household member is conclusive that the Legislature did not intend for the Habitual Offender Act to apply. Because the Legislature enacted the felony battery against a household member statute in 2008, more than ten years after Anaya was decided, Defendant claims that the Legislature‘s silence must have been intentional. In support of this argument, Defendant cites Aguilera v. Bd. of Educ. of Hatch Valley Schs., 2006-NMSC-015, ¶ 24, 139 N.M. 330, 132 P.3d 587, for the proposition that this Court presumes the Legislature is aware of existing law of the appellate courts. Presuming the Legislature was aware of Anaya‘s holding when it enacted the felony battery against a household member statute, Defendant asserts that the Legislature would have explicitly stated its intention for the Habitual Offender Act to apply.
{10} The State responds that the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the plain language reading of both statutes at issue unambiguously resolves the question of whether the Habitual Offender Act applies to felony battery against a household member. This resolution, the State asserts, supports application of the Habitual Offender Act to felony battery against a household member.
{11} The Court of Appeals concluded that “[b]ased on the language in these statutes,” the district court did not err in enhancing Defendant‘s sentence. Barela, 2019-NMCA-005, ¶ 5. We agree with the Court of Appeals and
{12} We determine, construing the statutes harmoniously, that no conflict exists when applying both statutes simultaneously. The justification for this conclusion is twofold. First, the felony battery against a household member statute includes no indication that the Legislature intended sentencing for felony battery against a household member to be different from any other felony. If the Legislature intended for convictions of felony battery against a household member to be treated as misdemeanors at sentencing, the Legislature would have so specified, in which case enhancing a third conviction of battery against a household member to a felony would carry less weight than a felony conviction ordinarily carries. Presumably, the intent of the Legislature was to deter defendants who continue to commit this same crime by subjecting them to harsher penalties. See State v. Yparrea, 1992-NMCA-128, ¶¶ 9-10, 114 N.M. 805, 845 P.2d 1259 (recognizing that an increased penalty imposed on a habitual offender under
{13} Second, the Habitual Offender Act, in its definition of “prior felony conviction,” explicitly excludes felony DWI but does not exclude felony battery against a household member. See
{14} Although Defendant asks us to apply the rule of lenity, we construe no ambiguity in the statutes at issue, and therefore the rule of lenity does not apply. See State v. Hall, 2013-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 294 P.3d 1235 (noting that the rule of lenity applies when the text of a statute is determined to be ambiguous and, after interpretation, reasonable doubt persists as to the statute‘s applicability).
B. Anaya‘s Narrow Holding Applies Specifically to Nonviolent DWI Convictions and Does Not Prohibit the Habitual Offender Act from Applying to a Conviction of Felony Battery Against a Household Member
1. Battery against a household member is distinguishable from felony DWI
{15} In Anaya, we held that defendants convicted of felony DWI under
{16} Concluding that both the habitual offender and felony DWI statutes are ambiguous as to whether they can apply simultaneously, we applied the rule of lenity. Id. ¶ 32. In applying the rule of lenity, we held that any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the defendant and concluded that the Habitual Offender Act did not apply to felony
{17} Defendant argues that Anaya‘s holding prevents the application of the Habitual Offender Act to felony battery against a household member because felony battery against a household member, like felony DWI, is a self-enhancing statute. Because the statute for felony battery against a household member is self-enhancing, Defendant asks that we apply the rationale of Anaya, which states that felony battery against a household member is limited to its own “particular enhancement provision.” See Anaya, 1997-NMSC-010, ¶ 33.
{18} The State responds that Defendant “misses critical distinctions” between felony battery against a household member and felony DWI that render this Court‘s holding in Anaya inapplicable to the instant case. We agree.
{19} We conclude that Anaya is distinguishable from the current case, and thus, does not preclude application of the Habitual Offender Act to felony battery against a household member. Two reasons support this conclusion. First, unlike felony DWI, felony battery against a household member is a violent crime. Cf. id. ¶ 34 (reasoning that the Habitual Offender Act did not apply to a felony DWI conviction because DWI is not a crime “of a violent nature“). In fact, battery against a household member enhances to a felony only when a defendant has repeatedly inflicted violence on the same definitional subset of individuals. Presumably, the Legislature classified this behavior as a fourth-degree felony to ensure defendants could be punished more severely for continuing to batter those within their households. See Yparrea, 1992-NMCA-128, ¶ 10.
{20} Further, felony DWI is currently subject to its own sentencing scheme. Under
2. Although we reach the same conclusion as the Court of Appeals, we diverge from its reasoning
{21} The Court of Appeals incorrectly distinguished Anaya from the case at bar and rested its conclusion on two factors. First, the court discussed how DWI has its own sentencing scheme within the Motor Vehicle Code, while felony battery against a household member is codified within the Criminal Code. Barela, 2019-NMCA-005, ¶ 9. Because the Habitual Offender Act states that it applies to felonies “‘whether within the Criminal Code or the Controlled Substances Act or not,‘”
{22} While the explicit statutory sentencing scheme for DWI indicates that the Legislature did not intend the Habitual Offender Act to apply to convictions of felony DWI, codification of felony battery against a household member within the Criminal Code is not, alone, a persuasive indicator that the statute is subject to the Habitual Offender Act.
{23} Additionally, the Court of Appeals rested its reasoning on the fact that the felony DWI statute mentions “jail” instead of “prison,” while the felony battery against a household member statute makes no such distinction. Barela, 2019-NMCA-005, ¶ 10. This observation, however, goes unexplained. As discussed in the Barela dissent, the Anaya Court did mention use of the word “jail” but did not rely heavily on this detail as a decisive factor in the Court‘s holding. See Barela, 2019-NMCA-005, ¶ 38 (Vargas, J., dissenting). We note that all self-enhancing felony provisions of
III. CONCLUSION
{24} Concluding that the Habitual Offender Act is applicable to a defendant convicted of felony battery against a household member, we affirm the Court of Appeals but diverge from its reasoning. Accordingly, we affirm Defendant‘s enhanced sentence.
{25} IT IS SO ORDERED.
C. SHANNON BACON, Justice
WE CONCUR:
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Justice
BARBARA J. VIGIL, Justice
DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice