Opinion ID: 610918
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Policy concerns underlying repeat offender statutes

Text: 15 Our result supports the general purpose of habitual offender statutes, which is to deter convicted criminals from committing crimes and to incarcerate for longer periods those who have shown an inclination to commit crimes. See Petros, 747 F.Supp. at 376; State v. Edmonson, 112 N.M. 654, 658, 818 P.2d 855, 859 (App.1991). We concur with the conclusion of the Fourth Circuit in Campbell that [t]o treat a deferred sentence as something other than a 'prior conviction' would 'completely frustrate the policy behind the enhancement provisions of the federal statute, i.e., to penalize and deter repeat offenders.'  980 F.2d at 251 (quoting Petros, 747 F.Supp. at 376). Thus, we cannot agree with the district court's conclusion that Meraz is still entitled to enjoy the benefits of New Mexico's deferral statutes, even after she committed a second felony drug offense. 16 The district court's analysis failed to give proper weight to the intended operation of habitual offender statutes, such as New Mexico's statute and the federal statute at issue. Meraz was given a second chance by New Mexico on the condition that she simply refrain from committing further felonies. Meraz's conviction on a second drug conspiracy offense involving more than 100 pounds of marijuana clearly shows that she failed to abandon her criminal activity after her first conviction. The general purpose of deferred sentence statutes is to permit first offenders the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and to give them a second chance by expunging their records. Campbell, 980 F.2d at 251. However, when an individual has been given an opportunity to reform his or her conduct and instead commits another crime, the imposition of an enhanced sentence is appropriate.