State v. CalvertState v. Calvert
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bustamante
Lead Opinion
OPINION
BUSTAMANTE, Judge.{1} We consolidate three cases on appeal which raise two questions integral to the mandatory sentencing provisions of
{2} We hold that a trial court must award presentence confinement credit to first-time offenders and has discretionary authority to grant presentence confinemеnt credit, for any eligible time served, against a mandatory minimum “consecutive” jail term imposed against a defendant who has been convicted of a second or third offense of driving under the influence (DWI), pursuant to
Statement of Facts and Proceedings
{3} Defendant James Calvert (Calvert) was arrested on June 27, 2000, for Driving While Intoxicated (B.A.C. of .08% or above) (DWI), a misdemeanor, and Driving While License Suspended or Revoked (Suspended/Revoked License). On April 3, 2001, Calvert entered a DWI Repеat Offender Plea and Disposition Agreement wherein he pled guilty to DWI, Second Offense, pursuant to
{4} Defendant Juan Zavala (Zavala) was arrested on February 22, 2001, for Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated (B.A.C. of .16% or above) (Aggravated DWI), a misdemean- or, and Driving on Wrong Side of Roadway. On June 13, 2001, Zavala entered a DWI Repeat Offender Plea and Disposition Agreement wherein he pled guilty to Aggravated DWI, Second Offense, pursuant to
{5} Defendant Oscar Sanchez Jacquez (Jacquez) was arrested on October 24, 2001, for Aggravated DWI (Refusal), a misdemean- or; Speeding; Resisting; Evading or Obstructing an Officer; No Proof of Insurance; and No Driver’s License. On June 6, 2001, a jury found Jacquez guilty on all charges. The magistrate court entered the Judgment and Sentence on June 29, 2001, convicting Jacquez of Aggravated DWI, First Offense, and sentencing him to ninety days with eighty-eight days suspended for the mandatory minimum sentence of forty-eight hours, pursuant to Section 66-08-102(D) and (E). Subsequently, on Jacquez’s motion to award presentence confinement credit, the court awarded him one day credit for the “several hours” Jacquez spent in jail prior to posting bond. However, the exact amount of time Jacquez spent in jail prior to sentencing is unknown.
{6} In each case, the State appealed the Judgment and Sentence to the district court on the ground that the credit for time served was illegal in that it reduced the minimum mandatory “consecutive” sentences prescribed by
{7} The district courts also denied the Calvert and Zavala appeals, ruling that the award of presentence confinement credit was properly within the discretion of the magistrate court pursuant to Martinez and that the award of a full day credit for a partial day served was appropriate.
Presentence Confinement Credit
{8} May a defendant be awarded presentence confinement credit where the defendant has served less than the mandatory minimum consecutive sentence pursuant to
{9} The State contends that Defendants’ sentences are illegal because they fail to comply with the statutory provision that jail time be served consecutively. The State interprets the statute to mean that time must be served consecutively, hour for hour, “without interruption.” To construe the statute otherwise, the State argues, would frustrate legislative intent tо punish drunk drivers. The State concludes that this result would be contrary to Martinez, which affords the trial court discretion to award jail time credit only if it “does not lessen the penalty intended by the Legislature, or otherwise frustrate the Legislature’s constitutional function of establishing criminal penalties.” 1998-NMSC-023, ¶ 14, 126 N.M. 39, 966 P.2d 747.
{10} Defendants, on the other hand, argue that Martinez squarely addresses the issue of whether granting jail time credit is illegal under
{11} Defendants Calvert and Zavala insist that Martinez has resolved the issue as to second or third time offenders as well in concluding that “the Legislature did not intend to limit trial courts’ inherent discretion to provide presentence credit for second and third offenders.” 1998-NMSC-023, ¶ 15, 126 N.M. 39, 966 P.2d 747. Limiting the court’s discretion to award credit, they argue, would lead to absurd results by requiring judges to sentence some defendants to almost twice the mandatory sentence. This result, Defendants conclude, contradicts the finding in Martinez that the Legislature did not intend to punish second and third time offenders more harshly than fourth time offenders who receive felony convictions. Id.
{12} Martinez does not control these cases directly. The issues before the Court in Martinez were whether a trial court had discretion to award confinement credit for misdemeanor convictions in general, and if so, whether the magistrate court had authority to award credit to a defendant who had served ninety days in an alcohol treatment program, against his entire mandatory sentence. See id. ¶¶ 6-7. The Court held that the trial court had inherent discretion to provide presentence cоnfinement credit for second and third time offenders. Id. ¶ 15. Defendants here did not serve their entire mandatory minimum sentence, but only a fraction of those sentences. Martinez does not address a situation where the defendant has served less than the mandatory minimum consecutive sentence. These cases, therefore, raise a question of first impression: whether the use of the term “consecutive” in the sentencing of a defendant under
Standard of Review
{13} “The [¡Interpretation of a statute is an issue of law that is subject to de novo review.” State v. Cleve, 1999-NMSC-017, ¶ 7, 127 N.M. 240, 980 P.2d 23, modification on other grounds recognized by State v. Perea, 2001-NMCA-002, ¶¶ 9-19, 130 N.M. 46, 16 P.3d 1105 (quoting State v. Rowell, 121 N.M. 111, 114, 908 P.2d 1379, 1382 (1995)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Martinez does not control and this Court must interpret the DWI statute, Defendants are incorrect in their argument that the appropriate standard of review should be an abuse of discretion. See State v. Jensen, 1998 NMCA 034, ¶ 19, 124 N.M. 726, 955 P.2d 195 (sentencing is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Aggravated DWI, First Offense
{14} Jacquez was convicted of Aggravated DWI, First Offense, and, pursuant to
{15} “Our primary goal in interpreting a statute is to give effect to the Legislature’s intent. We look first to the words chosen by the Legislature and the plain meaning of the Legislature’s language.” Martinez, 1998-NMSC-023, ¶ 8, 126 N.M. 39, 966 P.2d 747. Legislative intent may also be gleaned by the statutory structure of a provision. See In re Conservatorship of Chisholm, 1999-NMCA-025, ¶ 14, 126 N.M. 584, 973 P.2d 261 (“The starting point in statutory construction is to read and examine the text of the act and draw inferences concerning the meaning from its composition and structure.”) (quoting 2A Norman J. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.01, at 136 (5th ed.1992) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
{16} The plain language of subsection (E) requires a sentence of not less than forty-eight consecutive hours, although it also mаndates credit for time served prior to a conviction. The Legislature has placed no restrictions on crediting a first time offender for time served on an Aggravated DWI. To the contrary, it has provided that an offender be given confinement credit for any first conviction, including Aggravated DWI, by prefacing the provision unequivocally with “[o]n a first conviction under this section. This mandate appears in the same section and after the Aggravated DWI sentencing language at issue. And it is the second to last sentence in the entire section, which includes the forty-eight consecutive hour language. The plаin language as well as the structure of subsection (E) indicates that a court must sentence a defendant to forty-eight consecutive hours, but it must then credit the defendant for time served in jail on that offense.
{17} The Supreme Court in Martinez did not directly address the question of whether a first time offender was entitled to jail time credit against his mandatory minimum “consecutive” jail term. Rather, the Court simply noted that the plain language of the statute required the trial court to award presentence confinement credit to a first time offender. See 1998-NMSC-023, ¶¶ 8, 11, 126 N.M. 39, 966 P.2d 747. This Court’s construction of
{18} Aсcordingly, this Court affirms the trial court’s ruling that Defendant Jaequez was entitled to presentenee confinement credit.
DWI, Second and Third Offense
{19} Martinez concluded that because the Legislature intended first and fourth DWI offenders to receive presentence credit, trial courts have inherent discretion to award presentenee credit to second and third DWI offenders. Id. ¶ 15. Because the issue was not presented, however, Martinez did not determine whether credit may be applied against the mandatory minimum consecutive sentences or whether it may only be applied to sentences imposed in excess of the mandatory minimum.
{20} “[T]he cardinal rule of statutory construction is to determine legislative intent.” D’Avignon v. Graham, 113 N.M. 129, 131, 823 P.2d 929, 931 (Ct.App.1991). When the language is clear and unambiguous, it must be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Key v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 121 N.M. 764, 769, 918 P.2d 350, 355 (1996). However, the plain meaning rule does not require a mechanical, literal interpretation of a statute. D’Avignon, 113 N.M. at 131, 823 P.2d at 931 (“[Bjoth this court and the ... Supreme Court have rejected formalistic and mechanistic interpretation of statutory language.”). Rather, courts “must exercise caution in applying the plain meaning rule. Its beguiling simplicity may mask a host of reasons why a statute, apparently cleаr and unambiguous on its face, may for one reason or another give rise to legitimate ... differences of opinion concerning the statute’s meaning.” Key, 121 N.M. at 769, 918 P.2d at 355 (quoting State ex rel. Helman v. Gallegos, 117 N.M. 346, 353, 871 P.2d 1352, 1359 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In construing a statute, “all parts of a statute must be read together to ascertain legislative intent. We are to read the statute in its entirety and construe each part in connection with every other part to produce a harmonious whole.” Id. (citations omitted); see also General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Anaya, 103 N.M. 72, 76, 703 P.2d 169, 173 (1985).
{21} The meaning of the “consecutive” language in
{22} A review of the statutory history of
{23} The “consecutive” language was first introduced in the 1982 amendment. Whereas the statute previously provided that a second or subsequent offender “be sentenced to a jail term of not less than two days which shall not be suspended or deferred,”1 the 1983 version read that for second and subsequent convictions, offenders must be “sentenced to a jail term of not less than forty-eight consecutive hours which shall not be suspended or deferred or taken under advisement.” 2
{24} Ten years later, the 1993 amendment applied the “consecutive” language to Aggravated DWI, First Offense,3 even though the Legislature had required courts to credit first convictions for time served since 1965.4 The Legislature also incorporated the use of the term throughout
{25} While it is possible that the Legislature simply overlooked the fact that a first time offender was entitled to presentenee confinement credit when it imposed a mandatory forty-eight consecutive hour sentence, it is equally plausible that it simply wanted to ensure that a forty-eight hour block of jail time could not be suspended, deferred, or taken under advisement, еven though the court would have the discretion to award credit. At bottom, the statute is not clear and the statutory history does not assist us in evaluating the Legislature’s intent.
{26} We are mindful that since 1941 the legislative trend has been to increase punishment and severity of sentences for DWI convictions. State v. Hernandez, 2001-NMCA - 057, ¶ 21, 130 N.M. 698, 30 P.3d 387 (noting there have been twelve amendments to the DWI statute since 1941, “augmenting penalties or adding provisions for court-ordered drug and alcohol screening, treatment, and rehabilitation.”), see also State v. Clah, 1997-NMCA-091, ¶ 10, 124 N.M. 6, 946 P.2d 210 (applying presentence credit under
{27} However, we are equally mindful of the need for consistency and reasoned principle when interpreting statutes. Rauscher, Pierce, Refsnes, Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep‘t, 2002-NMSC-013, ¶ 24, 132 N.M. 226, 46 P.3d 687 (“A court will construe statutes relating to the same subject matter together so as to maintain a consistent and sensible scheme.’ ”) (quoting Gottsch Feeding Corp. v. State, 261 Neb. 19, 621 N.W.2d 109, 117 (2001)). The State argues that by choosing the “consecutive” language the Legislature has manifested its intent that the entire mandatory minimum sentence be served consecutively, without interruption, before any presentence confinement credit be granted. However, reading the statute together in its entirety, as this Court must do, we find there is no reasoned principle upon which this Court can interpret the consecutiveness requirement of
{28} It is the duty of the judiciary, in implementing the directives of the Legislature, to exercise reason and to ensure that the ends of justice are met. Martinez, 1998-NMSC-023, ¶ 14, 126 N.M. 39, 966 P.2d 747. “The granting of presentence confinement credit, unlike ... the suspension of a mandatory sentence ... does not necessarily interfere with the Legislature’s role in establishing appropriatе penalties for crimes. Presentence confinement credit represents a court’s recognition that a defendant, in fact, has satisfied a portion of the penalty mandated by the Legislature.” Id. Its purpose is to “assure equal treatment of all defendants whether or not they are incarcerated prior to conviction.” Miranda, 108 N.M. at 792, 779 P.2d at 979; see also State v. Clements, 161 Ariz. 123, 776 P.2d 801, 803-05 (1989) (holding that, because the purpose of presentence confinement credit is to avoid inequity between people of different financial means, trial courts have discretion to award presentence confinement credit, evеn when the DWI statute requires a mandatory amount of time to be spent “in prison,” not jail).
{29} Reading the statute as a whole requires this Court to review the penalty scheme for all levels of convictions, interpreting them to achieve as harmonious a result as possible. See In re Conservatorship of Chisholm, 1999-NMCA-025, ¶ 8, 126 N.M. 584, 973 P.2d 261. Denying presentence confinement credit to a second and third time offender would create inconsistent and unjust disparities between first and fourth or subsequent offenders and second and third offenders. Under the State’s interpretation, a second time offender who serves two days, twenty-three hours, and fifty-nine minutes of presentence confinement must be sentenced to an additional seventy-two hours or three days for a total of almost six days. On the other hand a more wealthy defendant could bond out almost immediately.
{30} This result, some might argue, is de minimis given the seriousness of the drunk driving problem. However, the- difficulty with the State’s position becomes apparent when applied to a third and aggravated third conviction, for which a defendant must be sentenced to thirty and ninety consecutive days, respectively. See
{31} A survey of^other states is of little help in our endeavor to determine what exactly the Legislature meant by “consecutive.” Twenty-five states currently require mandatory minimum “consecutive” sentences under their DWI laws, although those sentences vary widely.7 Of those twenty-five states, only a handful have decided the issue of whether defendants are entitled to jail time credit. Three states have ruled that a defendant is entitled to such credit even though their sentence required them to serve a consecutive jail term. See State v. Philbrick, 127 N.H. 353, 499 A.2d 1341, 1344 (1985) (holding second time offender could be sentenced to mandatory seven consecutive day sentence and still be entitled tо credit under mandatory credit rule, thereby reducing sen-, tence to three consecutive day term); State v. Dixon, 18 Ohio App.3d 86, 481 N.E.2d 1197, 1198 (1984) (finding the legislature did not intend to exempt DWI statute requiring seventy-two consecutive hours in jail from state’s mandatory credit rule); State v. Kain, 24 SW.3d 816, 820 (Tenn.Crim.App.2000) (holding defendant entitled to seven hours pretrial jail credit under mandatory credit rule, despite court’s previous ruling that minimum mandatory sentences must be served consecutively).
{32} Each of the three states that have allowed presentence credit have done so in light of its state’s mandatory credit rule which applies to misdemeanors, as well as felonies. Only one state has declined to authorize jail time credit, but it did so based on the state’s limited credit and DWI statutes. See State v. Urbanek, 15 Kan.App.2d 73, 803 P.2d 1030, 1032-33 (1990) (concluding Legislative history clearly indicated DUI offenders should receive more severe punishment so that time served prior to conviction cannot be credited against minimum consecutive term unless it applies to entire sentence). Kansas law required that jail time credit be granted “[i]n any criminal action ... [but] ... [may not] be considered to reduce the minimum or maximum terms of confinement.” Id. at 1032. On the same note, its DWI statute imposed a mandatory minimum “five consecutive days’ imprisonment before the person is granted probation, suspension or reduction of sentence or parole or is otherwise released.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
{33} New Mexico laws are distinct from Kansas laws. New Mexico’s felony credit rule, unlike Kansas law, does not prevent a court from reducing a minimum or maximum sentence. Likewise, New Mexico’s DWI statute, unlike Kansas’ DWI statute, does not go so far as to mandate a minimum consecutive sentence before an offender is “otherwise released.” Although New Mexico’s statutory credit rule applies to felonies rather than misdemeanors, unlike other states that have a mandatory credit rule, New Mexico has held that courts have an inherent discretion to award jail time credit in misdemeanors. Martinez, 1998-NMSC-023, ¶ 14, 126 N.M. 39, 966 P.2d 747. As a general matter, we see no reason to distinguish between “misdemeanor convictions [and] felony convictions in crediting time in jail prior to sentencing.” See State v. Piersall, 20 Ohio App.3d 110, 485 N.E.2d 276, 279 (1984) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While defendants may not be entitled to credit under a mandatory credit rule as other states have held, New Mexico courts have the discretion to award such credit for second and third DWI convictions.
{34} Accordingly, we hold that the Legislature did not intend to limit a trial court’s discretion to award presentence confinement credit against a mandatory minimum consecutive sentence imposed for a second or third DWI conviction. To hold otherwise would create inconsistent results between first, second, and third convictions.
The Miranda Rule
{35} In Miranda, the Supreme Court held that a one-day credit rule should be granted for every twenty-four hours, or fraction thereof, pursuant to
{36} The State contends that applying the Miranda rationale is inappropriate where the Legislature has specified that the time must be served consecutively. In the State’s view, any credit against a mandatory minimum consecutive jail term lessens the penalty intended by the Legislature and frustrates the Legislative constitutional function to establish penalties. See Martinez, 1998-NMSC-023, ¶ 14, 126 N.M. 39, 966 P.2d 747. Moreover, the State points out that Miranda interpreted
{37} Defendants appear to argue that since the Miranda one-day credit rule applies to a fourth conviction which is a felony, it should be applied to first, second, and third misdemeanor DWI convictions, as a matter of consistency.
Analysis
{38} We agree with the State. Miranda addressed only felonies to a limited extent.
{39} Moreover, the underlying rationale of Miranda does not apply with similar force to DWI misdemeanor sentences that are statutorily stated in terms of hours. Miranda discussed two reasons for the credit rule: (1) administrative ease of application, and (2) equal treatment of defendants whether or not they were incarcerated prior to conviction. 108 N.M. at 792, 779 P.2d at 979 (discussing the possible ambiguity in jail records as to the exact time a defendant was put into custody or released, as well as the disparate crediting of consecutive and concurrent sentences).
{40} Defendants’ equal treatment is not at issue where virtually all defendants spend at least a few hours in jail after arrest and before posting bond. The record does not contain information as to how much time a “typical” defendant arrested for DWI may generally spend in custody prior to posting bond. However, we can reasonably assume, that given the nature of the offense, most defendants spend at least some time, albeit perhaps only a few hours, in custody prior to posting bond. It would be anomalous for intoxicated defendants, given their state, to post bond immediately following their arrest without serving at least some time in custody. Therefore, as a practical result, most every defendant arrested for DWI would be entitled to a full twenty-four hour credit under Miranda, thereby reducing in half, for example, every forty-eight consecutive hour sentence.
{41} In light of the foregoing, this Court holds thаt when a court sentences a defendant to a minimum consecutive sentence statutorily stated in terms of hours, it is an error, as a matter of law, to award a full day credit where a defendant has served only a fraction of that time. Defendants may be given credit but only for the actual time served. For example, a defendant booked into jail at midnight and released at 10:00 a.m. following arraignment would be eligible for ten hours of credit against a forty-eight hour minimum sentence.
{42} Accordingly, we remand each case so that the various trial courts can calculate their credit time in a manner consistent with this opinion.
{43} IT IS SO ORDERED.
I CONCUR: LYNN PICKARD, Judge. JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part).Notes
. 1982 N.M. Laws, ch. 102, § 1.
. 1983 N.M. Laws, ch. 76, § 2.
. 1993 N.M. Laws, ch. 66, § 7.
. 1965 N.M. Laws, ch. 251, § 1.
. 1993 N.M. Laws, ch. 66, § 7.
. 1997 N.M. Laws, ch. 43, § 1, ch. 205, § 1, 1999 N.M. Laws, ch. 61, § 1, 2002 N.M. Laws, ch. 82, § 1.
.
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
{44} When courts construe statutes, they do so for legislative intent. Martinez, 1998-NMSC-023, ¶ 8, 126 N.M. 39, 966 P.2d 747. Because I believe that the legislative intent to impose a sentence of consecutive jail time is clear, I would construe
{45}
{46} I believe that the language of
{47} As written,
{48} I agree with the majority’s resolution of the Miranda issue.