AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant pleaded guilty in 2016 to aggravated fleeing and DWI, with an admission of identity to two prior felonies. The State initially sought to enhance his sentence with one of the two prior felonies. Upon revocation of his probation, the State aimed for a four-year enhancement for each felony, based on both prior felonies, with credit for any time served under the additional enhancement. The district court, however, ruled that only an additional year apiece could be added to the enhancements, as the first felony had been "used up" in the first sentence (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge: The district court ordered revoking Defendant's probation and resentencing him.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued for a four-year enhancement for each felony upon revocation of Defendant's probation, based on the use of both prior felonies (para 2).
• Defendant-Appellee: Opposed the State's argument for a four-year enhancement, suggesting that the use of a second prior at resentencing should only add an additional year apiece to the enhancements (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State's use of only a single prior felony in the original sentence precludes it from using that same prior felony for purposes of seeking a greater enhancement in the second sentence (para 3).
• Whether to depart from precedent in light of Defendant's argument that double jeopardy law has evolved since the relevant precedent was decided (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings (para 5).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, and JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge, concurring): The Court of Appeals found that the State's use of only a single prior felony in the original sentence did not preclude it from using that same prior felony for purposes of seeking a greater enhancement in the second sentence, aligning with the precedent set in State v. Freed. The Court noted that the second judgment supersedes the original judgment, and therefore all prior felonies charged by the State control the period of enhancement. The Court declined to depart from the precedent set in Freed, noting no statutory change indicating a shift in legislative intent regarding the issue. The Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings, maintaining the applicability of the precedent in the face of evolved double jeopardy law arguments (paras 3-5).