Opinion ID: 675239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Appellant's Habitual Offender Status

Text: 34 Appellant was sentenced as an habitual offender. Appellant contests his habitual offender status on substantive and procedural grounds. Appellant argues that the State's failure to follow its own substantive and procedural law violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. 35 As to substance, appellant argues he does not meet the statutory definition of habitual offender. Appellant notes that in 1966 the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the Habitual Offender Act did not apply to persons convicted under the Controlled Substances Act. State v. Lujan, 76 N.M. 111, 114-15, 412 P.2d 405, 408-09 (1966). However, in 1983, after the Lujan decision and before the conduct at issue in this case, the habitual offender statute was amended to include persons convicted of narcotics offenses. N.M.Stat.Ann. Sec. 31-18-17(D) (Repl.Pamp.1990). Therefore, appellant's argument is clearly without merit. 36 As to procedure, appellant argues that raising his habitual offender status by supplemental information was improper under New Mexico law and, therefore, under the Fourteenth Amendment. Appellant argues that New Mexico criminal procedure requires an information to charge an offense. The supplemental information in this case did not charge an offense, but rather a status--that of habitual offender. State v. Cruz, 82 N.M. 522, 525, 484 P.2d 364, 367 (Ct.App.1971). Therefore, according to appellant, the supplemental information is invalid. Again, appellant's argument is without merit. New Mexico law requires that habitual offender status be raised by information. N.M.Stat.Ann. Sec. 31-18-19 (Rep.Pamp.1990). The State did not violate its own procedures, and thus did not violate due process, by charging appellant as an habitual offender by supplemental information. See Martinez v. Romero, 626 F.2d 807, 810 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1019, 101 S.Ct. 585, 66 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980). 37 Finally, appellant argues that the supplemental information was improper because it amended the indictment without approval of the grand jury. The court disagrees. As discussed above, New Mexico law provides for charging habitual offender status by information rather than indictment. The statute authorizes charging habitual offender status in a separate proceeding from the underlying criminal charge. See State v. Silva, 78 N.M. 286, 430 P.2d 783 (Ct.App.1967). Therefore, Minner has no claim for violation of due process by failure to follow state law procedures. Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment right to grand jury indictment does not apply to states. Aldridge v. Marshall, 765 F.2d 63, 68 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1062, 106 S.Ct. 810, 88 L.Ed.2d 785 (1986) (citing Hurtado v. People of State of California, 110 U.S. 516, 4 S.Ct. 111, 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884)). Therefore, Minner has no right, either under New Mexico law or under the United States Constitution, to a grand jury indictment as to his habitual offender status. 38 The petition for a certificate of probable cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 is hereby granted. The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.