Court Opinion

ID: 9957066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 16:09:04.687939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:05.702820
License: Public Domain

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of
Appeals.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-41088

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

      Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RODNEY GONZALEZ,

      Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY
Jane Shuler Gray, District Court Judge

Raúl Torrez, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Santa Fe, NM
Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION

YOHALEM, Judge.

{1}   Defendant appeals from a district court order revoking his probation. We issued a
calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a memorandum in
opposition, in which he raises a new issue, which we treat as a motion to amend. We
deny the motion and affirm the district court.

Motion to Amend
{2}     In cases assigned to the summary calendar, this Court will grant a motion to
amend the docketing statement to include additional issues if the motion (1) is timely,
(2) states all facts material to a consideration of the new issues sought to be raised, (3)
explains how the issues were properly preserved or why they may be raised for the first
time on appeal, (4) demonstrates just cause by explaining why the issues were not
originally raised in the docketing statement, and (5) complies in other respects with the
appellate rules. See State v. Rael, 1983-NMCA-081, ¶ 15, 100 N.M. 193, 668 P.2d 309.
This Court will deny motions to amend that raise issues that are not viable, even if they
allege fundamental or jurisdictional error. See State v. Moore, 1989-NMCA-073, ¶ 42,
109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91, overruled on other grounds by State v. Salgado, 1991-
NMCA-044, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730.

{3}    Here, Defendant is attempting to raise the issue of whether his underlying
sentence is illegal. [MIO 2] Defendant points out that his plea agreement did not rule out
a habitual enhancement of his sentence, and Defendant admitted to the prior conviction.
[RP 68] If imposed, a habitual enhancement would not be subject to suspension or
deferment. [MIO 2] See NMSA 1978, § 31-18-17 (2003). Defendant’s argument is that
the district court did not comply with this mandatory provision when it did not impose an
actual sentence at the time of the original sentence. [RP 82] However, the original
sentence was the product of a plea agreement, where the State had agreed to hold off
seeking habitual enhancement, reserving the right to bring a supplemental information
in the event that Defendant violated probation. [RP 68] This reservation is a common
practice, and reflects the State’s broad charging discretion. See State v. Leyba, 2009-
NMCA-030, ¶ 21, 145 N.M. 712, 204 P.3d 37 (stating that “the [s]tate [has] broad
discretion to seek habitual offender enhancement[s]”). As such, we do not deem
Defendant’s new issue to be viable.

Issue in the Docketing Statement

{4}     Defendant’s sole issue in the docketing statement challenged the sufficiency of
the evidence to support the revocation of probation. Our calendar notice proposed to
affirm. Defendant’s memorandum in opposition does not challenge the proposed
affirmance. We therefore deem the issue to be abandoned. See State v. Johnson,
1988-NMCA-029, ¶ 8, 107 N.M. 356, 758 P.2d 306 (explaining that when a case is
decided on the summary calendar, an issue is deemed abandoned when a party fails to
respond to the proposed disposition of that issue).

CONCLUSION

{5}    For the reasons set forth above, we affirm.

{6}    IT IS SO ORDERED.

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge

WE CONCUR:
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge