April 30, 2020- State of New Mexico v. Misty Ann Martinez, No. A-1-CA-37999

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with
NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in
Odyssey.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Plaintiff-Appellee, Uh ~£ eof
Mark Reynolds

V. No. A-1-CA-37999
MISTY ANN MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY

Angie K. Schneider, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
William A. O’Connell, Assistant Public Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VARGAS, Judge.
4; Defendant appeals from the denial of her second amended motion to strike the
enhancement of her sentence based on an out-of-state conviction. This Court issued

a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum

in opposition, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.

|

2
{2} 	On appeal, Defendant contends that State v. Moya, 2007-NMSC-027, ¶ 19, 141	1
N.M. 817, 161 P.3d 862, in which our Supreme Court held that, under NMSA 1978,	2
Section 31-18-17(D)(2)(C) (2003), “a prior out-of-state misdemeanor conviction can	3
be used to enhance a sentence . . . when the conviction was either punishable by a	4
maximum of more than one year imprisonment in the state in which it was committed	5
. . . or classified as a felony in New Mexico at the time of conviction,” was wrongly	6
decided. [MIO 6] Our notice proposed to affirm, stating that the Court of Appeals	7
must follow applicable precedents of our Supreme Court. See State ex rel. Martinez	8
v. City of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, ¶ 20, 135 N.M. 375, 89 P.3d 47 (stating that	9
the Court of Appeals is bound by Supreme Court precedent). [CN 2] As Defendant’s	10
California conviction at issue was for a crime that would have been considered a	11
felony in New Mexico, we proposed to affirm the enhancement of her sentence. [CN	12
2-3] To the extent Defendant continues to maintain that Moya was “wrongly decided,”	13
this argument remains unpersuasive. Moreover, to the extent Defendant argues that	14
our Supreme Court’s decision in Moya conflicts with the policy established in State	15
v. Linam, 1979-NMSC-004, ¶ 15, 93 N.M. 307, 600 P.2d 253, this is, again, an issue	16
for our Supreme Court to address.	17
{3} 	Defendant also argues in her memorandum in opposition that the “full faith and	18
credit” clause of the United States Constitution should prevent her sentence	19

3
enhancement. [MIO 6] Because the California court granted Defendant’s petition to	1
reclassify one of her convictions from a felony to a misdemeanor, pursuant to	2
California state legislation, she argues that the conviction should have been similarly	3
classified as a misdemeanor for the purposes of enhancement of her New Mexico	4
sentence. [MIO 3] However, Defendant acknowledges that our courts have previously	5
rejected such arguments. [MIO 7] See State v. Edmondson, 1991-NMCA-069, ¶ 23,	6
112 N.M. 654, 818 P.2d 855 (stating that regarding “habitual-offender statutes in	7
particular, the deterrent and punitive purposes of those statutes argue strongly in favor	8
of upholding their provisions against any challenge under the Full Faith and Credit	9
Clause. Thus, it is not surprising that . . . the clause does not prevent a state from using	10
as a predicate offense for its habitual-offender statute an offense in another state that	11
has been pardoned”).	12
{4} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in this Court’s notice of proposed	13
disposition, we affirm.	14
{5} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	15
16
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge	17

1 £
WE CONCUR:
2
Pastina Bogardus
3
KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge
4 5
Megan P Duffy
MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge
4