Albuquerque Criminal Lawyer Blog

The New Mexico Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling in Farmington v. Pinon-Garcia regarding the proper scope and standard of review for an appeal from a lower court that is not of record.

The Court held that the proper standard of review for decisions by a municipal court or any other court that is not of record is de novo, and that the scope includes a de novo review of all pretrial proceedings and preliminary matters raised by both parties. De novo review is a standard of appellate review where the reviewing court analyses the facts of a case as if it were considering the issues for the first time, regardless of the lower court's findings.

The facts of Farmington v. Pinon-Garcia involved a Defendant charged with several traffic violations, including DWI. Defendant was arraigned in municipal court and the arresting officer failed to appear as the prosecution's witness on the day set for trial. Accordingly, since the prosecution failed to secure the presence of a witness for trial, the municipal court dismissed with prejudice. When a case is dismissed with prejudice it usually cannot be refiled.

The City of Farmington appealed the dismissal to the district court. The district court conducted a de novo trial on the merits of the case and the Defendant was convicted. On appeal, the New Mexico Court of Appeals found that the district court should have conducted a de novo hearing on whether the municipal court properly dismissed the issue before engaging in a de novo trial on the merits of the case.

The Court went on to explain the proper standard of review for rulings from a magistrate court, including whether it was proper to dismiss without prejudice, was de novo because the magistrate court was not a court of record. A court not of record is an inferior court where proceedings are not memorialized in the same way as those in courts of record. Since the district court was reviewing matters that are not part of a record, the proper standard of review is de novo.

According to the Court, the district court erred because it should have conducted a de novo review of all pretrial proceedings and preliminary matters, including the Defendant's motion to dismiss and whether he was being put in double jeopardy, before going on to hold a new trial.

In this case, the district court did not address whether the municipal court properly dismissed the charges against the defendant, did not take any additional evidence, or hold a hearing on the matter, but instead issued a ruling denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss. In doing so, the district court did not question whether dismissal by the municipal court was appropriate, whether a new trial on the merits was appropriate, or whether it put the Defendant in double jeopardy.

For these reasons, the case was reversed and remanded to the district court to perform a de novo review on whether the municipal court's dismissal for the prosecution's failure to secure the presence of a witness was appropriate. The Court also stated that the district court must specifically address double jeopardy issues in its review as well.

Issues of double jeopardy and standards of review can be very complicated. If you are faced with a situation like this, an experienced criminal attorney can explain your rights and options.

A recent case before the New Mexico Court of Appeals clarified whether a court could sentence an individual to more time than agreed to in a plea agreement if a portion of that sentence was suspended. In State v. Miller, the Court held that the suspended portion of the sentence counted as part of the sentence and therefore courts could not sentence a defendant for more time than agreed to under the plea agreement, regardless of whether a portion of the sentence is suspended or not.

A plea agreement is an agreement between a defendant and the prosecutor where a defendant pleads guilty to a charge in exchange for certain concessions like a reduced sentence, dismissal of other charges or other recommendations to the court favorable to the defendant. The agreement is then presented to the court, which must accept or deny it. Once the court accepts the agreement, it is binding on all parties, including the court itself.

In State v. Miller, the defendant entered into a plea agreement whereby he would receive a sentence of no less than ten and no more than forty years in prison. After the agreement was accepted by the district court judge, the court sentenced him to forty-two years imprisonment with a suspension of nine years, for a total initial sentence of thirty-three years. The defendant appealed, arguing that the forty-two year sentence violated the plea agreement. The New Mexico Court of Appeals agreed.

At the appeal, the State argued that a forty-two year sentence was consistent with the plea agreement because the plea agreement stipulated that the Defendant would not be given more than 40 years "at initial sentencing." The state argued that the forty-year limitation in the agreement referred to the initial period of incarceration, and not the sentence itself. Since Defendant's initial period of incarceration was thirty-three years, the State argued, the agreement was not violated when the Defendant was sentenced to forty-two years with a nine-year suspension. The New Mexico Court of Appeals disagreed.

The Court Appeals held that under New Mexico case law, courts construe plea agreements according to the Defendant's reasonable understanding of the plea. It is also settled in New Mexico that any part of a sentence that is initially suspended is counted as part of the sentence.

The Court of Appeals made clear that the fact that a sentence is suspended does not change the length of a sentence. For example, a court may not sentence a defendant to 500 years with a suspension of 498 years without violating a plea agreement for a maximum sentence of two years. Once a court accepts a plea agreement, it may not sentence a defendant to more time than agreed to, regardless of whether a portion of the sentence is suspended.

In this case, the Court found that it was reasonable for the Defendant to understand that his total sentence, and not just the initial period of incarceration, would be no longer than forty years. The Court also noted that if the State wanted to make sure that the Defendant served a certain period of time, it could have easily made it clear in the plea agreement. Then of course, the district court could have refused the plea agreement completely since this is generally within the discretion of the judge.

Related Reading:

• The Law of Contracts and Criminal Plea Agreements in New Mexico


• Supreme Court Extends Sixth Amendment Protection to Rejected Plea Offers

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys