State v. Archibeque

• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: EASLEY
• Citation: State v. Archibeque, 95 N.M. 411, 622 P.2d 1031, 1981 NMSC 10 (N.M. 1981)
• Decision Date: 26 January 1981
• Docket Number: No. 12905,12905
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moses Charles ARCHIBEQUE, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 1031

622 P.2d 1031

95 N.M. 411

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moses Charles ARCHIBEQUE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12905.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 26, 1981.

[95 NM 411] Martha A. Daly, Appellate Defender, Melanie S. Kenton, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.

Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., John G. McKenzie, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

EASLEY, Chief Justice.

Defendant Archibeque was convicted of commercial burglary and sentenced to one to five years in the penitentiary. After he had begun serving this sentence the State filed a supplemental information charging Archibeque as an habitual offender, based on four prior felony convictions. Archibeque was convicted in this proceeding, whereupon the trial court vacated the sentence on the principal offense and imposed a life sentence. Archibeque appeals. We affirm.

We inquire: (1) whether the trial court's vacating of the lesser sentence and resentencing violated the constitutional provisions against double jeopardy; and (2) whether the imposition of the life sentence is unconstitutional as constituting cruel and unusual punishment.

As to the first issue regarding double jeopardy, this Court's recent decision in State v. James, 94 N.M. 604, 614 P.2d 16 (1980) is controlling. In James, this Court held that an habitual offender proceeding is merely a sentencing procedure and hence does not involve double jeopardy. Additional support for this conclusion was recently provided by the United States Supreme Court in U. S. v. DiFrancesco, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 426, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 1980. The Court held that a federal statute granting the United States the right, under specified conditions, to an appeal for the purpose of increasing the sentence imposed, did not violate the defendant's right against double jeopardy.

On the second issue, we hold that the life sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The United States Supreme Court, in Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980) upheld the mandatory imposition of a life sentence under a similar Texas statute. The Court ruled that although the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of a sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the crime, "for crimes concededly classified and classifiable as felonies, that is, as punishable by significant terms of imprisonment in a state penitentiary, the length of the sentence actually imposed is purely a matter of legislative prerogative. (Footnote omitted.)" Id. at 270-271, 100 S.Ct. at 1137-1138.

Absent a compelling reason, not present here, the judiciary should not impose its own views...