State v. Deal, S-1-SC-38568

Case DateMay 02, 2022
CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Respondent,

JOEY DEAL, Defendant-Petitioner.

No. S-1-SC-38568

Supreme Court of New Mexico

May 2, 2022

This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico 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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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 Supreme Court.


Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Allison H. Jaramillo, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Petitioner

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Maris Veidemanis, Assistant Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Respondent


VIGIL, Chief Justice.

{1} WHEREAS, this matter came before the Court under Rule 12-501 NMRA upon Defendant Joey Deal's petition for writ of certiorari seeking review for the denial of habeas corpus;

{¶2} WHEREAS, the Court having considered the briefs and being otherwise fully informed on the issues and applicable law;


{¶3} WHEREAS, Defendant's Motion to Amend Amended Judgment and Sentence, requesting resentencing under the pre-1999 Earned Meritorious Deduction Act (EMDA), NMSA 1978, § 33-2-34(A) (1988, amended 2015), asserted his offenses should not have been considered "'serious violent offenses'" under the EMDA because it was unclear whether they occurred after July 1, 1999;

{¶4} WHEREAS, in a second amended judgment and sentence the district court correctly concluded the pre-1999 EDMA applied and Defendant's convictions were not serious violent offenses because Defendant's offenses either occurred prior to the 1999 EDMA amendment or because the jury was not asked to specify when the offenses occurred. See State v. Salazar, 2006-NMCA-066, ¶ 36, 139 N.M. 603, 136 P.3d 1013 (declining to presume that one of the convictions was for acts after July 1, 1999 when jury was not asked to specify which act occurred after July 1, 1999);

{¶5} WHEREAS, in addition to correcting the classifications under the EMDA in the second amended judgment and sentence, the district court increased Defendant's sentence by forty-four years to "effectuate the specific intention of the Sentencing Judge";

{¶6} WHEREAS, Defendant now asks this Court to conclude that the district court violated the prohibition against double jeopardy under the Fifth...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT