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 violated parole and, under a plea agreement, faced sentence enhancement for seven offenses not previously enhanced. The State sought to use two prior felony convictions for this enhancement. The district court found the Defendant to be a habitual offender, enhancing his sentence for each offense by four years, to be served consecutively, totaling an additional twenty-eight years in prison.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court improperly enhanced his sentence based on the parole violation, challenged his lack of counsel at the parole revocation hearing, and contended that the district court erred by ruling that the habitual offender enhancement could not be served concurrently.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Defended the sentence enhancement based on the parole violation and the lack of counsel at the parole revocation hearing, and argued that the district court correctly ruled that it lacked discretion to order the habitual offender enhancements to be served concurrently.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court improperly enhanced the Defendant's sentence based on a parole violation.
• Whether the Defendant's lack of counsel at the parole revocation hearing was improper.
• Whether the district court erred by ruling that the habitual offender enhancement could not be served concurrently.

Disposition

• The appellate court disagreed with the Defendant's arguments regarding the inappropriateness of the enhancement based on his parole violation and his lack of counsel but agreed that the district court erroneously ruled it lacked discretion to order the habitual offender enhancements to be served concurrently. The court reversed and remanded for the district court to exercise its discretion regarding the concurrent serving of the habitual offender enhancements.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge (Michael D. Bustamante, Judge, and J. Miles Hanisee, Judge concurring):
  Enhancement Not Improper for Parole Violation: The court found that the Defendant's sentence enhancement for parole violation was not inappropriate, as the plea agreement allowed for additional habitual proceedings upon any parole violation, and case law supported the State's ability to seek enhancement at any time before the Defendant completed his sentence (paras 3-5).
  Enhancement Not Improper for Invalid Waiver of Counsel: The court determined that the Defendant's waiver of counsel at the parole revocation hearing did not invalidate the enhancement, as parole revocation hearings do not require the same standards for waiver of counsel as criminal trials. The Defendant failed to demonstrate that his waiver was not knowing and voluntary or that he was prejudiced by this waiver (paras 7-11).
  Discretion to Run Habitual Offender Enhancements Concurrently: The court concluded that the district court erred in believing it lacked discretion to order the habitual offender enhancements to be served concurrently. The appellate court found no plea agreement, case law, or statute that prevented the district court from exercising such discretion. Therefore, it reversed the sentencing order and remanded for the district court to exercise its discretion regarding whether the enhancements should run concurrently (paras 13-23).