Lead Opinion
OPINION
I. Introduction
{1} Defendant Anthony Tafoya pled guilty to first degree murder and was sentenced as a serious youthful offender. The Second Judicial District Court exercised its statutorily granted discretion in sentencing Defendant as a serious youthful offender by imposing a sentence of thirty years imprisonment, with ten years suspended, and four days good time credit eligibility per month. Defendant appeals the limitation on his good time credit eligibility, arguing that it violates the legislative enactment of the prison good time credit scheme, the Earned Meritorious Deductions Act (“EMDA”), NMSA 1978, Section 33-2-34 (2006).
{2} The EMDA governs the eligibility for and award of good time credits in our state prisons. The statute is silent, however, on the good time credit eligibility of individuals, such as Defendant, sentenced as serious youthful offenders for convictions of first degree murder and receiving less than a life sentence. After construing the EMDA harmoniously with the relevant sentencing statutes and taking into consideration the strong policy of encouraging rehabilitation of juvenile offenders, we conclude that the district court’s discretion in sentencing serious youthful offenders implies the discretion to limit, as part of the sentence, Defendant’s good time credit eligibility to four days per month. Defendant’s sentence is affirmed.
II. Background
{3} Defendant pled no contest to first degree murder, felony murder, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-2-1(A)(2) (1994). Per the terms of the plea agreement, Defendant, age sixteen at the time of the murder, was sentenced as a serious youthful offender. The plea agreement set forth the district court’s full discretion in sentencing Defendant “anywhere from probation up to a life sentence” and defined a life sentence as “a 30 year sentence before the possibility of parole, and without any good time credit followed by 5 years parole.”
{4} The district court sentenced Defendant to “life[,]” which the district court “interpreted ... as meaning a 30 year sentenee[,]” with ten years of the sentence suspended and five years of probation, citing its statutory discretion in sentencing serious youthful offenders under NMSA 1978, Sections 31-18-13(A) (1993) and 31-18-15.3(D) (1993). The sentence authorized “[t]he Department of Corrections [ (“DOC”) ] ... to award Defendant good time credit in accordance with New Mexico law.” When Defendant began serving his sentence, the DOC calculated his good time eligibility at the rate of thirty days per month. Subsequently, at the request of the DOC, the State filed a Motion to Clarify Judgment and Sentence seeking an explanation of the award permitting Defendant to earn good time credits. After a hearing, the district court ruled that Defendant was eligible to earn four days good time credit per month. Defendant then filed a Motion to Reconsider, which the district court denied. The district court’s final order on Defendant’s sentence ruled “[t]hat [] Defendant can earn a maximum of up to 4 days per month of good time credit ... if he indeed earns it.”
{5} Defendant appeals the final order and argues that, under the EMDA, he should be eligible for up to thirty days good time credit per month. This appeal invokes our mandatory appellate jurisdiction under Article VI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution and Rule 12-102(A)(1) NMRA. See State v. Trujillo,
III. Defendant’s Plea Agreement Did Not Waive His Right to This Appeal
{6} Before reaching the merits of Defendant’s argument, we must address whether Defendant’s plea agreement prohibits this appeal. In his plea agreement, Defendant “specifically waive[d] his right to appeal as long as the court’s sentence is imposed according to the terms of this agreement.” The State posits that the waiver may preclude this appeal. We disagree, and hold that a plea agreement may not waive the right to challenge on appeal whether a sentence was imposed without jurisdiction.
{7} We recently reiterated that “a voluntary guilty plea ordinarily constitutes a waivеr of a defendant’s right to appeal his conviction on other than jurisdictional grounds.” State v. Chavarria,
{8} In this case, the district court granted Defendant good time credit eligibility as part of his sentence. Eligibility to earn good time credits is determined as part of sentencing only in a narrow class of cases. Courts generally have a “limited role” in administering the EMDA. State v. Rudolfo,
IV. The Court’s Discretion in Sentencing Serious Youthful Offenders Implies Discretion to Limit Good Time Credit Eligibility
{9} Because the power of the courts to sentence is granted by statute, see State v. Davis,
{10} In construing a statute, we must “ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” State v. Cleve,
¶ 10,
{11} We commence our analysis by looking to the plain meaning of the EMDA. The EMDA governs the eligibility for and award of good time credits in our state prison system. Section 33-2-34; see also Rudolfo,
{12} Section A of the EMDA limits good time eligibility based on the crime for which an inmate is “confined for committing.”
{13} First degree murder is absent from the serious violent offense/nonviolent offense dichotomy. Section G of the EMDA completely precludes good time credit eligibility for individuals serving a life sentence. Section 33-2-34(G); see also Compton,
{14} Although convicted of first degree murder, Defendant, as a child, was not automatically sentenced to life in prison. Defendant was sentenced as a serious youthful offender. The Delinquency Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 32A-2-1 to -33 (1993, as amended through 2009), defines a serious youthful offender as “an individual fifteen to eighteen years of age who is charged with and indicted or bound over for trial for first degree murder.” Section 32A-2-3(H). After conviction as a serious youthful offender, an adult sentence is imposed. See § 31-18-15.3(D) (stating that a sentencing court “shall sentence” a serious youthful offender as an adult pursuant to the Criminal Sentencing Act); Jones,
{15} Under the EMDA, Defendant is serving less than a life sentence, and thus is not precluded from good time credit eligibility entirely by Section G. First degree murder is not listed as a serious violent offense, and thus Defendant’s good time credit eligibility is not statutorily limited to four days per month based on the crime for which he was confined for committing. Applying the plain language of the statute, the exercise of discretion by the district court in sentencing Defendant to less than life imprisonment for his conviction of first degree murder has the untenable result of treating first degree murder as a nonviolent offense for purposes of the EMDA. Classifying first degree murder by a serious youthful offender as a per se nonviolent offense is the sort of absurd result for which we forego applying the plain meaning test. See State v. Trujillo,
{16} Nor does the plain meaning of the EMDA lead, as the State asserts it may, to the contrary result, one in which Defendant is entirely ineligible to earn good time credits. We have said that the EMDA “is limited to inmates who have been sentenced for non-capital felonies.” Compton,
{17} Because application of the plain meaning of the EMDA results in the absurd conclusion that the Legislature intended first degree murder, when committed by a youth, to be treated as a nonviolent offense, we look to the legislative history and policy of the statute. The legislative history of the statute supports the proposition that the Legislature intended sentencing courts to have discretion regarding the good time credit eligibility of serious youthful offenders. The Legislаture amended the EMDA in 1999 to prohibit good time credit eligibility for inmates serving life or death sentences. See Compton,
{18} This conclusion finds further support in the serious youthful offender sentencing scheme. The Legislature granted the district courts discretion in sentencing serious youthful offenders to further the primary goals of the Delinquency Act. These goals are: rehabilitation of the child, accountability, deterrence, protection of the public, and punishment for the crime committed. Section 32A-2-2. Our legal system does not consider juvenile offenders to be “with reliability ... among the worst offenders” because youths’ consciences have not fully developed and thus they generally may be rehabilitated. Roрer v. Simmons,
{19} Similarly, the primary policy behind the good time credit scheme is inmate rehabilitation. The Legislature created the EMDA, and the analogous jail good time statute, NMSA 1978, § 33-3-9 (1995), as a tool for managing рrisons and jails and to encourage inmate cooperation, good behavior, and rehabilitation. See Compton,
{20} Reading the EMDA and the serious youthful offender sentencing statutes in harmony, the discretion granted to judges in sentencing serious youthful offenders would be severely curtailed if serious youthful offenders were strictly prohibited from earning good time credits during imprisonment. “[T]he judiciary’s role in sentencing criminal defendants is not a purely ministerial task.” State v. Martinez,
{21} We hold that the explicit Legislative grant of discretion to the district court in sentencing Defendant as a serious youthful offender implies the discretion to award serious youthful offenders good time credit eligibility within the existing framework of the EMDA, that is, zero, four, or thirty days good time credit eligibility per month. We underscore that this discretion is based not on the district court’s defining first degree murder committed by a serious youthful offender as a serious violent offense or a nonviolent offense for purposes of the EMDA, but rather on the discretion our Legislature granted sentencing courts in imposing a sentence that will best contribute to the rehabilitation of the child. The district court did not act outside its sentencing jurisdiction in permitting Defendant the ability to earn four days per month good time credit as part of his sentence. In awarding Defendant the same good time credit eligibility as permitted, under the EMDA, other individuals convicted of intentional killings but sentenced to less than life imprisonment, the district court reasonably exercised this implied discretion.
{22} Defendant argues that our conclusion is prohibited by a series of cases in which the district court was found to have abused its discretion by labeling a crime a serious violent offense, thus limiting the defendant’s good time credit eligibility to four days without statutory authority. In State v. McDonald,
{23} Defendant also argues that the rule of lenity must be applied to the EMDA to permit him to earn up to thirty days good time credit each month. We disagree. “The rule of lenity counsels that criminal statutes should be interpreted in the defendant’s favor when insurmountable ambiguity persists regarding the intended scope of a criminal statute.” State v. Ogden,
V. Defendant’s Constitutional Claims are Without Merit
[21] {24} In addition to arguing that the district court was without statutory authority to limit his good time credit eligibility, Defendant argues that the order limiting his eligibility violated separation of powers and his constitutional rights of due process and equal protection. We review these constitutional claims de novo. Seе State v. Brown,
{25} Because we hold that the district court acted within its statutorily authorized sentencing discretion in granting Defendant four days good time credit eligibility per month, the district court did not infringe on the executive branch’s role in administering the EMDA or the Legislature’s role in defining criminal penalties. See Martinez,
{26} Defendant argues that his equal protection rights under the United States and New Mexico constitutions were violated because other serious youthful offenders who are currently serving less than a life sentence are eligible to earn thirty days good time credit per month. As Defendant recognizes, his equal protection claim is analyzed under a rational basis review. See Martinez v. State,
{27} Nor were Defendant’s due process rights under the State or Federal constitutions violated by the limitation placed on his good time credit eligibility. Defendant argues that the district court, by amending the Judgment and Sentence, revoked his good time credit eligibility without due process of law. The DOC initially calculated Defendant’s good time eligibility at the rate of thirty days per month, but subsequently requested the State seek clarification of Defendant’s good time credit eligibility. Defendant does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in unearned good time credits. See Brown v. Ulibarri,
VI. Conclusion
{28} We hold that a district court may limit good time credit eligibility under the EMDA when sentencing a serious youthful offender to less than a life sentence upon a conviction for first degree murder. The district court’s Order of Judgment and Sentence limiting Defendant to four days per month good time credit eligibility is affirmed.
{29} IT IS SO ORDERED.
Notes
. In general, juveniles sentenсed as adults are eligible to earn good time credits under the EMDA based on the crime for which they were confined for committing. Cf. NMSA 1978, § 32A-2-20(E) (2009) ("A youthful offender given an adult sentence shall be treated as an adult offender[.]”).
. We acknowledge that the dissent makes a persuasive argument to reach a result that, though contrary to ours, is not an unreasonable interpretation of the legislative intent at issue. Although we do not find it necessary to apply the rule of lenity to resolve this case, doing so would result in the same conclusion: where there are two reasonable interpretations of legislative intent, the rule of lenity instructs we choose that which is favorable to the defendant. We note that Defendant’s construction of the EMDA is not possible even with application of the rule of lenity, which would not be used to reach a conclusion previously characterized as absurd.
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
{30} I agree with the majority that Anthony Tafoya (Defendant) did not waive his claim challenging the district court’s sentencing jurisdiction and, therefore, I concur in part III of the majority opinion. However, I disagree with the majority that the district court has the discretion under the Earned Meritorious Deductions Act (EMDA), NMSA 1978, Section 33-2-34 (2006), to award good time credit eligibility to serious youthful offenders convicted of first degree murder. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from parts IV and V of the majority opinion.
{31} I begin my analysis with the EMDA, which establishes “a detailed set of guidelines for both the courts and the corrections department to administer in the ultimate determination of a prisoner’s eligibility for good time reductions from his period of confinement.” State v. Rudolfo,
{32} Under the EMDA, the district court has no discretion whatsoever with respect to the good time credit eligibility of defendants convicted of a serious violent offense or a nonviolent offense, or defendants sentenced to serve a sentence of life imprisonment or death. Section 33-2-34(G), (L)(3), (L)(4)(a)(n); see Rudolfo,
{33} The EMDA only grants the district court discretion in a very limited context. Under Section 32-3-34(L)(o), fiftеen enumerated offenses, which otherwise would be categorized as nonviolent offenses, may be treated as serious violent offenses “when the nature of the offense and the resulting harm are such that the court judges the crime to be a serious violent offense for the purpose of [the EMDA].” “The courts have no further role in the administration of the EMDA or in determining the amount of good time that may be earned as to any convicted offense.” Rudolfo,
{34} With this background in mind, I turn to the question presented on appeal, namely, whether the district court properly awarded Defendant four days of good time credit eligibility per month. Defendant was convicted as a serious youthful offender of first degree murder. The crime of first degree murder is not listed as a serious violent offense in Section 33-2-34(L)(4)(a)-(n), or an offense which the district court may, in its discretion, treat as a serious violent offense under Section 32-3-34(L)o). Defendant’s good time credit eligibility therefore depends upon whether the crime of first degree murder is a nonviolent offense, for which Defendant may earn a maximum of thirty days per month, or whether Defendant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment, which renders him ineligible to accrue any good time credits at all.
{35} Like the majority, I have no trouble concluding that first degree murder is not a nonviolent offense for the purposes of the EMDA. First degree murder is a capital felony “reserved for the most heinous and reprehensible [of killings], and therefore deserving of the most serious punishment under this state’s law.” State v. Adonis,
{36} In drafting the EMDA, it is unlikely that the Legislature “considered, or even foresaw” how the statute would apply to a serious youthful offender convicted of a capital crime, but sentenced to less than life imprisonment, the mandatory term for an adult. State v. Trujillo,
{37} Trujillo does not dictate a contrary result. In that ease, although the defendant was a serious youthful offender sentenced to thirty years of imprisonment, the district court expressed its “intention that the Defendant be eligible for good time credit as to the sentence imposed.” Trujillo,
{38} In Trujillo, the defendant did not claim that his sentence was “illegal as not authorized under the applicable statute.” Id. ¶ 64 n. 4. Accordingly, this Court simply assumed that the defendant’s sentence was authorized by law, without any analysis of the EMDA or the district court’s authority to award good time credits. Under these circumstances, no reasonable inferences can be drawn regarding the scope of the EMDA or the Legislature’s failure to amend the statute in response to our opinion. See Martinez v. Chavez,
{39} I recognize that the district court has broad discretion under the Criminal Sentencing Act (CSA), NMSA 1978, Sections 31-18-12 to -26 (1977, as amended through 2009), to fashion an appropriate sentence for serious youthful offenders. Indeed, in this case, the district court exercised its broad discretionary sentencing authority by sentencing Defendant to twenty, rather than thirty, years of imprisonment for the crime of first degree murder. However, good time credits “have no bearing upon the ... original sentence imposed by the district court.” Aqui
{40} The majority may be correct that permitting the district court to grant good time credit eligibility to serious youthful offenders under the EMDA would further the public policy of rehabilitation. However, “it is the particular domain of the legislature, as the voice of the people, to make public policy.... Courts should make policy ... only when the body politic has not spoken____” Benavidez v. Sierra Blanca Motors,
{41} Defendant claims that any ambiguity in the EMDA must be construed in his favor pursuant to the rule of lenity and, therefore, he is entitled to thirty days of good time credit eligibility per month. The rule of “lenity is reserved for those situations in which a reasonable doubt persists about a statute’s intendеd scope even after resort to the language and structure, legislative history, and motivating policies of the statute.” State v. Ogden,
{42} In light of my conclusion that the district court exceeded its statutory authority to administer the EMDA, I need not reach Defendant’s separation of powers claim. With respect to Defendаnt’s equal protection claim, I agree with Defendant that all serious youthful offenders convicted of capital crimes are similarly situated under the EMDA and, therefore, must receive the same amount of good time credit eligibility per month. However, I would conclude that such serious youthful offenders’ good time credit eligibility is limited to zero days under the EMDA and that any award in excess of zero days violates the statute. Lastly, Defendant’s due process claim lacks merit because a criminal defendant does “not have a liberty interest in keeping erroneously granted good-time credits.” Compton,
{43} As a serious youthful offender convicted of a capital crime, I believe that Defendant was ineligible to earn any good time credits under the EMDA. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from parts IV and V the majority opinion.