1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___

____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: Jul y

12, 201 6 4 N O. 34, 653 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v

. 8 DANIEL G. ARAGON, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA NTAFE CO UN TY 11 M ar y L . M ar lowe S om m er , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 San ta Fe, NM 14 Tony a N oonan Herring, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 for Appellee 17 Gr egory

Gahan 18 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 19 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 SU TIN, Judge. 3 { 1} O n a

ppe al , D ef

en dant D an ie l G

. A ra gon atte m pts to ha ve am is de m eanor 4 driving while intoxicated (D W I) convi ction in a de novo bench trial in di strict court 5 dis m iss ed

be ca use the D W I ch ar ge a nd a tr af fi c ci ta tio n w er e not

j oin ed und er the 6 com pulso ry j oind er r ule, Rule 5- 203(A) NMRA . W e hold that th e com pulso ry j oind er 7 rule does not require j oind er in this case, and therefore the district court did no t err 8 in d en y ing D ef

en dant’ s m oti on t o di sm iss

. 9 BACKGRO UND 10 { 2} D ef

en dant w as sto ppe d by

O ff ic er A dr ian D ia z fo r dr ivi ng 1 11 m ile s pe r hour 11 in a 55 m iles-per-hour zone. Du ri ng the traffic stop, Of ficer Dia z determ ined that 12 De fendant wa s im

paired, and he placed De fendant under arre st for D W I. 13 { 3} De fendant wa s arra igned on a third degre e felony DW I char ge in the Santa Fe 14 CountyMagistrate Court, but the charge w as quicklydism iss ed without prej udice 15 pendin g the outco m e of the prosecution’s investigation into whether the D W I w as 16 Defen da nt ’s si xt h o ffen se , whi ch wou ld be a th ird de gr ee fe lo ny. See N MS A 197 8, 17 § 66-8-102 (I) (2010). T he speedin g ch arge was filed in a separ ate m agistrate court 18 ca use tw o day s af

te r the dis m iss al w ith out pr ej udi ce of the D W I fe lon y c ha rg e, a nd17 The applicable rule w as m agistrate court com pulso ry j oind er R

ule 6-306(A), 1 18 which is virtually

identical to Rule 5-203(A).

2 1 D ef en dant p le ad ed

no c ont es t t o th e spe ed ing ch ar ge an d ag re ed to pa y the fi ne a nd 2 fe es . 3 { 4} Appr oxi m at el y

thr ee m onths a ft er

D ef en da n t ’ s p l e a

t o th e s p e e d i n g c i t at ion , the 4 State deter

m ined, based on its f

elony investig ation, that the DW I should be charged 5 as a m isd em eanor se co nd o ff en se a nd n ot a

f el ony six th o ff en se . T he re af

te r, the S ta te 6 fi le d am isd em eanor

D W I (0

. 08) se co nd o ff

en se c ha rg e ag ai nst

D ef en dant in the 7 original m agistrate court DW I ca use. D efendant filed and the m agistrate court denied 8 a m otion to dism iss based on Rule 5-203(A), which is a district court rule. Co m pare 1 9 Ru le 5-2 03 (A), wi th Ru le 6- 306( A ) N MR A ( Ru le s of

Cr im ina l P ro ce du re for

the 10 Magistrate Courts). De fendant wa s convicted by a j ury of D W I (0. 08) second offense, 11 an d he appe al ed

to the dis tr ic t c ourt. 12 { 5} Inhis dis tr ic t c ourt a ppe al , D ef

en da nt f ile d am oti on t o di sm iss unde r Ru le 5- 13 203( A ), a ga in arg uin g tha t the m isd em eanor c ha rg e shou ld b e dis m iss ed be ca use it 14 ha d not bee n jo ine d wi th the spe ed ing ci ta tio n. T he dis tr ic t cour t deni ed the m oti on, 15 an d a fte r a de nov o be nc h tr ia l, the c ourt e nte re d an or de r fi ndi ng D ef en da nt g uil ty 16 and rem anding the m atter to m agistrate court for im posit ion of that court’s sentence.3

1 { 6} O n a

ppe al to thi s Court fr om the dis tr ic t cour t’ s orde rs de ny ing his m oti on t o 2 dis m is s an d find ing D ef en dant g uil ty

a nd r em an din g th e m atte r to the m ag istrate 3 co urt t o im

pose se nte nc e, D ef

en da nt ar gue s that

the pr ose cu tio n of

the D W I ch ar ge 4 w as barr ed

by Ru le 5-2 03 (A) (and

pe rh ap s, but

not c le ar ly , a lso by

the m ag istrate 5 co urt c om

pul sor y j oin de r Ru le 6- 306(A)), as i nte rp re te d and a ppl ie d in State v. 6 Gonzales , 201 3- N MS C- 016, ¶ ¶ 25- 33, 301 P

. 3d 3 80. 7 DISC US SION 8 { 7} Whe the r a cr im ina l sta tut e app lie s to partic ular co nduc t is aque sti on o f lawto 9 be rev ie wedde no vo . Sta te v . O ffi ce of P ub. Defe nd er e x re l. M uqqd din , 201 2- 10 N MS C- 029, ¶

13, 285 P

. 3d 6 22. 11 { 8} T he c ri tic al iss ue is w he the r Ru le 5- 203( A ) w as vio la ted when the D W I an d 12 tr af fi c of fe nse w er e not

j oin ed

. Ru le 5- 203( A ), br oa dly state s: 13 T w o or

m or e of fe nse s sh al l be j oin ed

in one c om

pla int , ind ic tm en t[ , ] or 14 inf

orm at ionw ithe ac h off

en se sta te d inase pa rate c ount , if the of fe nse s, 15 w he the r fe lon ie s or m isd em eanor s or

both: 16 (1) are of the sam e o r s i m i lar char acter , e ven if not part of a 17 sin gle sc he m e or plan; o r 18 (2) are based on th e sam e conduct or o n a series of acts either 19 co nne ct ed

tog ethe r or

c onst itu tin g part s of

asin gle sc he m e or

plan. 20 Gonzales provides no lim itations , but states the purpose of com pulso ry j oind er. 21 T he pur

pose of a co m

pul sor y j oin de r sta tut e, vie w ed

a s aw hol e, is 22 tw of

old : ( 1) to pr ote ct

ade fe ndant f

ro m the gov ernm en ta l har as sm en t14 In hi s sp eci al co nc urren ce, Chi ef Jud ge Vig il co nc lu de s t ha t Ru le 5-2 03 (A) 2 1 5 d o es n o t ap p l y b ec au s e t h e t ra ff i c o ff en s e w as n o tp en d i n g co n cu rr en t l y wi t h t h e D WI 16 ch ar ge in the dis tr ic t c ourt. W e did not a dopt the Ch ie f Judg e’ s int er pr et at ionbe ca

use 17 the c om

pul sor y j oin de r ru le f

oc use s onthe sim ilari ty in ch ar ac te r or c ondu ct of 18 offenses and does not s tate that com pulso ry j oind er only

applies to r elated offe nses 19 that ar e co n currently pending . I f the re levant inqu iry wa s whether c harges we re 20 co nc ur

re ntl y pe ndi ng, pr ose cu tor s w oul d be able to av oid the co m pul sor y j oin de r ru le 21 by m aking sure only one charge is pending at any given tim e. That sort of piecem eal 22 ap pr oa chto pr ose cu tin g ap pe ars to b e w ha t the c om pul sor y j oin de r ru le se ek s to 23 pr ev en t. 4 1 of

be ing sub

j ec te d to suc cessive tr ia ls f or of fe nse s st em

m ing f ro m the 2 sa m e cri m ina l e pis ode ; and ( 2) to en sur e fi na lity w ith out und uly 3 bur de nin g th e j udi ci al pr oc es s by r ep et iti ous lit iga tio n. 4 Gonzales , 201 3- N MS C- 016, ¶ 26 ( al te ratio n, int er

na l quota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c itatio n 5 om itted). W e con clude that noth ing in the language of Rule 5-203(A) r equired 6 com pulso ry j oind er in this case. 2 7 { 9} T he uni fo rm

tr af fi c ci ta tio n f

or sp ee din g c ont ai nin g ahe ar ing not ic e is a 8 co m pla int. NM SA 1978, § 66 -8 -1 28 ( 2013 ); N MS A 197 8, § 66 -8 -1 31 ( 1990 ); see 9 als o N MS A 1978 , § 66- 8- 116( A )( 7) (2 011, am en de d 2016 ) (s etting t he pe na lty 10 assessm ents f

or speeding m ore than 35 m iles per hour over the speed lim it at $200 ). 11 W e se e no r ea son w hy the S ta te c oul d not pr oc ee d w ith an d r es olv e the tr af fi c ci ta tio n 12 in m ag istrate c ourt w ith D ef en dant’ s no co nte st ple a. N or do w e se e an y

r ea son w hy 13 la te r, af

te r de te rm ini ng tha t the D W I shou ld n ot b e fi le d a s af el ony , the S ta te c oul d16 D ef

en dant has at no tim e sugg es te d th at the S ta te w as r equir ed

to dis m iss the 3 17 citation without prej udice along with the DW I charge and to then bring bo th charges 18 in o ne pr oc ee din g. 5 1 not the n f ile am isd em eanor

D W I ch ar ge in m ag istrate co urt. Furthe r, the spe ed ing 3 2 offense play ed no part in the per se 0.08 charge and conv iction. Thus, the offenses are 3 not of the sa m e or

sim ilar ch ar ac te r, nor ar e the of fe nse s ba se d onthe sa m e co nduc t. 4 See Ru le 5- 203( A ). In ad dit ion , to hol d tha t j oin de r he re w as c om pul sor y w oul d, in 5 our vie w , not be a ratio na l dis posi tio n. A m er ic an Bar A sso ci at ion( A BA ) St an dard s 6 f o r C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e S e c t i o n 1 3

- 2

. 3 ( d ) ( 2 de d

. 1 9 8 0 ) a n dM o d e l P e n a l Co de 7 Se ct i o n 1 .1 1 (2 ) ( Am. Law In s t . 2 0 1 5 ), ea ch s i d e w i t h t h e v i ew t h at a d e f en d an t ’s 8 en tr y of a no con te st ple a to a les se r of fe nse suc h as the tr af

fi c ci ta tio n he re doe s no t 9 bar a subsequent prosecutio n of an additio nal, greater off ense even if the tw o offenses 10 oc cu r du rin g o ne ep is od e. See A BAS tandard s § 1 3- 2. 3( d) (“ E ntr y of a ple a of

gui lty 11 or nol o c ont en de re to one of fe nse doe s no t bar th e su bs eq uent p ro se cu tio n of a ny 12 additio nal offense based upon th e sam e conduct or the sam e cr i m i n al episode.”); 1 3 Mod e l P e n a l C o d e § 1

. 1 1 ( 2 ) ( s t a t i n g t h a tap r o s e c u t i o n i s n o tb a rr e dw h e r e t he 14 “ fo rm er

pr ose cu tio n w as pr oc ur ed by the d ef en dant w ith out

the kno w le dge of

the 15 appropriate prosecuting o ffice r and w ith the pu rpose o f av oidin g the sentence that14 An analy sis of Gonzales and of t he com pulso ry j oind er r ule’ s breadth and lack 4 15 of r ea sona ble li m itatio ns, a s w el l a s r el at ed e xpe ct at ion s and co ncer ns a bout the 16 consequences, and case- by -case court im posed li m i tations o n the rule, is contained 17 in Rya n C

. Sch ot te r, State v. G onza les: R einvigora ting Criminal Join der in New 18 Mex ico , 44 N

. M. L

. Re v. 467 (2 014)

. Sc hot te r m ak es goo d po int s inhis a rt ic le a nd 19 br ing s to lig ht the br ea dth of Ru le 5- 203( A ) w ith its la ck of re as ona ble l im itatio ns, 20 req ui rin g c as e-b y -cas e co ns id er a t i on s o f rea so na bl e li m it at io ns . Sch ot te r, supra , at 21 500. 6 1 m ight o therwise be im posed” ). A defendant shou ld not be allowed to bar his later 2 prosecution sim

ply by rushing to plead to a consid erably lesser tra ffic of

fense. 4 3 CON CLU SION 4 { 10} T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in de ny ing D ef

en da nt ’s m oti on t o di sm iss the 5 DWI c h ar g e b as ed o n t h e c o m p u l s o ry jo i n d e r ru l e . We a ff i rm th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 6 sentencing-related order. 7 { 11} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 9 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e 10 I CONCUR:

11

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 12 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, Ju dg e

13 MIC HAE L E. VIGIL, Ch ief Judge (spec ially concu rring).7

1 VIGIL, Ch ief Judge (spec ially concu rring). 2 { 12} The m aj ority s tates that the “ critical issue is whether Rule 5-203(A) wa s 3 vi ol at edwhen th e DW I an d t raff ic off en se were n ot joi ne d.” Majo r i t y O p . ¶ 8 . I 4 dis ag re e w iththi s c hara ct er iz at ionof the iss ue be ca use I co nc lud e the re w as no tra ff ic 5 of fe nse to j oinw iththe D W I ch ar ge in the dis tr ic t cour t. Fo r thi s r ea son I co nc lud e 6 that Rule 5-203(A) did not applyand therefore specially concur. 7 { 13} W e do no t hav e co pi es of al l th e pl ead in gs fil ed in th e mag i s t r a t e co ur t. See 8 Rule 5-826(F)(2) N MRA(re quiring the m agistrate court cler k to file with the district 9 co urt c le rk

ac opy of a ll pa pe rs a nd ple ad ing s fi le d in the m ag istrate c ourt i n a ppe al s 10 from the m ag i s trate c ourt to the dis trict court). For the f actual background, we are 11 therefore required to rely on De fendant’ s m otion to dism iss and th e State ’ s response. 12 A cc or din g to the se ple ad ing s, D ef en da nt w as iss ue d ac itatio n fo r spe ed ing a nd 13 ar re ste d and c harg ed

w ithf el ony D W I (s ixth of

fe nse ) in th e SantaF e Co unty 14 Magistrate Court on N ove m be r 24, 2012

. D ef

en da nt w as a rr ai gne d inthe m ag istrate 15 co urt on the fe lon y D W I ch ar ge on N ove m be r 26, 2012 , an d on D ec em be r 5, 201 2, 16 the f el ony D W I ch ar ge w as dis m iss ed w ith out pr ej udi ce so tha t th e St ate c oul d 17 inv es tig at e howm an y pr ior D W I co nvi ct ion s D ef

en da nt a ct

ua lly ha d. T he re is no 18 al le gatio n that th is w as don e fo r an y im pr ope r pur

pose . O n M ar ch25, 201 3, 19 De fendant pleaded no contest to the speeding charge. The D W I char ge wa s re-f iled8

1 in the m agistrate court on July10, 2013, as a m i s dem eanor D W I (sec ond o ffense) , 2 an d tr ia l on the r e- fi le d D W I ca se w as he ld i n th e m ag istrate c ourt onApr il 18, 201 4. 3 { 14} Whe n D ef

en dant p le ad ed no con te st to the spe ed ing ch ar ge on M ar ch25, 201 3, 4 that was the only

charge pending because the separately filed felony DW I had been 5 dism issed. Wh en t h e m isdem eanor D W I char ge wa s re-f iled on Ju ly

10, 2013, that 6 w as the onl y ch ar ge pe ndi ng b ec au se the spe ed ing ca se w as al re ady re sol ve d. T hus, 7 the j oind er r equirem ent of the m agistrate cou rt, Rule 6-306(A), wa s not appl icable. 8 The re n ev er were two or m or e o ffen se s t o jo in

. 9 { 15} But tha t do es not e nd the m atte r. D ef

en da nt w as f

ound gui lty of the 10 m isd em eanor

D W I ch ar ge in the m ag istrate c ourt onApr il 18, 201 4. H e w as f ound 11 gui lty of the onl y c harg e pe ndi ng aga ins t him , an d he appe al ed tha t conv ic tio n to the 12 dis tr ic t co urt fo r a de nov o tr ia l. This m eant t hat the case was to be tried i n the district 13 co ur t an ew as if n o t ria l h adbe en h e ld in th e m ag is tra te co ur t. Sta te v . A rm ijo , N o. 14 34,400, 2016 W L 3266595 , 2016-NMS C-___, ¶ 28 ,

_ _ _P. 3d __ _ (June 13, 2016 ). 15 D ef en dant m ove d th e dis tr ic t c ourt t o di sm is s the D W I w ithpr ej udi ce “ ba se d on 1 6 [Ru l e 5 -2 0 3 (A ), ] th e co m p u l s o ry jo i n d erru l e[ .]” Whe n D ef en da nt f ile d hi s m oti on 17 to dism iss in th e d istrict court, there was onlyone charge—the D W I—and there w as 18 no oth er c rim e that could be joined with the DW I un der Rule 5-203(A) . T he district 19 co urt the re fo re pr ope rl y de nie d D ef

en da nt’ s m oti on.9

1 { 16} The m ajor ity

doe s no t e xpl ai n ho w m an da to ry joi nd er u nd er Ru le 5-2 03 (A) 2 shou ld be considered under these circum stances. I conclude it does n ot and that th ere 3 wa s no error in deny ing Defe ndant’s m otion t o d i s m iss. E ven if m andatory j oind er 4 co uld so m eh owbe inv oke d, D ef en da nt w oul d no t be e nti tle d to r el ie f unde r the 5 harm le ss e rr or

r ule se t f orth i n R ule 6- 303( A ) N MR

A a nd R ule 6- 704 N MR

A. 6 Mor eo ve r, I r es pe ct full y su bm it tha t the m aj or ity ’ s di sc uss ionof A BAS tandard s 7 Se ct ion13- 2. 3( d) a nd M ode l P en al Co de Se ct ion1. 11( 2) is pur el y a dvi sor y und er the 8 ci rc um stanc es .

9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 10 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , C hi ef Ju dg e