State v. Godkin

• Decision Date: 20 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 32,340.,32,340.
• Citation: 362 P.3d 161
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Sean GODKIN, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

362 P.3d 161

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Sean GODKIN, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 32,340.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, James W. Grayson, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.

Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender, B. Douglas Wood III, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.

OPINION

KENNEDY, Judge.

{1} Revocation proceedings, even if they include necessary competency determinations, must be completed prior to the expiration of the defendant's probation, else the district court's jurisdiction expires and the defendant must be discharged. Under NMSA–1978, Section 31–20–8 (1977), a criminal defendant is fully discharged from further obligation to the court, and the district court loses jurisdiction over the case, whenever the period for which the sentence was suspended expires without being revoked. This loss of jurisdiction is unaffected by a defendant's waiver of the time limits within which a revocation hearing must be held under Rule 5–805 NMRA after a violation of probation is alleged. Staying revocation proceedings to determine the defendant's competency likewise does not toll the district court's loss of jurisdiction under Section 31–20–8.

{2} In resolving this interlocutory appeal of the denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction following our remand, we also correct any misconceptions generated by our memorandum opinion in State v. Godkin, No. 31,638, mem. op., 2012 WL 2309082 (N.M.Ct.App. May 23, 2012) (non-precedential). In that opinion, we reversed the district court's denial of Defendant's requested continuance to finish evaluating Defendant's competency prior to revoking his probation. Since the district court could not revoke Defendant's probation absent first resolving the question of Defendant's competency, we also reversed the revocation, as well as the habitual offender enhancement imposed as a result of the revocation. We intended our remand to allow the court to accomplish such proceedings as might be appropriate to resolve the competency issue and the probation revocation. However, Defendant's probation expired without a valid revocation, leaving the district court without jurisdiction to proceed any further. On remand, Defendant's motion to dismiss should have been granted; we therefore remand the case to the district court for the discharge of the Defendant and closing of his case.

I. BACKGROUND

{3} Defendant's probation was scheduled to conclude on August 13, 2011. The State filed a second motion to revoke probation toward the end of Defendant's period of probation in April 2011. A revocation hearing in June 2011 was continued twice by Defendant, who waived the time limits in which to commence the hearing under Rule 5–805(H) and (J). In the meantime, the case was assigned to a judge pro tempore, who ordered a competency evaluation based on Defendant's motion of July 8, 2011.

{4} The results of the evaluation were to be presented to the district court during a revocation hearing set for July 21, 2011. Yet, Defendant was not transported to his July 18 evaluation appointment. Defendant's attorney who had raised competency resigned from the Public Defender's Office and new counsel entered her appearance on July 12. On July 21, prior to the hearing commencing, new counsel requested a continuance, asserting that her lack of preparation and the incomplete evaluation would render her representation ineffective were she to proceed that day as Defendant's attorney. The district court denied the motion to continue, saying Defendant's previous attorney had "promise[d]" the court that evidence on competency would be available at that hearing. The probation revocation hearing commenced with the State's first witness.

{5} Prior to Defendant's cross-examination of this witness, the district court expressed a changed desire to grant the continuance. The State informed the court that its jurisdiction would lapse on August 12, 2011¹ and absent revoking Defendant's probation, he would be "scot-free." Defense counsel agreed, stating that, "Once the jurisdiction runs on this case, it's done, whether it's stayed for competency or not." After defense counsel stated that it was not certain whether the competency evaluation could be performed before the deadline, the district court again denied the motion to continue and proceeded with the hearing, explicitly stating that it was the continuance, not the motion regarding competency, that was denied. After closing arguments, the district court found Defendant competent:

I find that in a previous proceeding[,] competency was raised, and the [c]ourt was given assurances that evidence would be presented on the issue of competence. There has been no evidence, other than raising the issue provided. There [have] been past determinations that ... Defendant was competent[ ] and, therefore, for purposes of today's hearing, I find [Defendant] is competent and has violated probation.

An arraignment and habitual offender proceeding immediately followed this determination. The district court entered its order on August 11, 2011, revoking Defendant's probation and sentencing him to an additional eleven years as an habitual offender.

{6} Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to continue, as well as the sentence enhancement. We issued the memorandum opinion referenced above. In that opinion, we acknowledged the "lapse in jurisdiction on August 13, 2011," Godkin, 31,368, mem. op. at 4, and held that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance for the competency evaluation. We reversed the orders of the district court and remanded for a new hearing. Our remand was intended to permit three things: "for Defendant to expressly waive the adjudicatory deadline, for the competency evaluation to take place, and for a new revocation hearing, if applicable." Id. at 5. Our mandate issued on July 18, 2012.

{7} On the July 19, 2012 hearing on remand, the district court repeated our instructions and called on Defendant to waive adjudicatory time limits, but defense counsel stated that there no longer remained anything waivable, because jurisdiction ran the previous August, and the commencement of a revocation hearing under Rule 5–805 was no longer the legal question. The State responded that it had previously argued, as noted in our memorandum opinion (Id. at 4), that Rule 5–805 would no longer be applicable were jurisdiction to lapse on August 13. It maintained that we knew of the jurisdictional problem, and "just kind of disregarded it." The State maintained that even if the Defendant did not waive the deadline, we had remanded for at least a new sixty-day period under Rule 5–805 within which to have an adjudicatory probation revocation hearing. At the State's request, and in light of our second directive to have an evaluation performed, the district court stayed proceedings pending a new evaluation of Defendant's competency. The district court scheduled another hearing more than a month later, to allow for the evaluation to be completed.

{8} Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the August 13, 2011, time limit was jurisdictional and could not be waived, and the absence of a valid probation revocation hearing prior to the probationary period expiring had divested the district court of jurisdiction. The State conversely argued that by remanding for a hearing "if applicable," we had recognized that the competency evaluation might postpone further hearings, and had tacitly acknowledged that jurisdiction could be extended following defendant's waiver of time limits under Rule 5–805. The district court denied Defendant's motion, but certified the matter for an interlocutory appeal, which we granted.

II. DISCUSSION

{9} A district court's authority to sentence an offender is conferred by statute, is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, and cannot be waived. State v. Frost, 2003–NMCA–002, ¶ 8, 133 N.M. 45, 60 P.3d 492. Section 31–20–8 states: "Whenever the period of suspension [of sentence] expires without revocation of the order, the defendant is relieved of any obligations imposed on him by the order of the court and has satisfied his criminal liability for the crime." This section was intended by the Legislature to limit the district court's jurisdiction over a defendant and terminate his criminal liability when his probation term expires. State v. Travarez, 1983–NMCA–003, ¶ 4, 99 N.M. 309, 657 P.2d 636. Because a defendant has a reasonable expectation of finality in his case, once the sentence is completely served, the trial court loses jurisdiction over it, including any ability to enhance the sentence. See State v. Roybal, 1995–NMCA–097, ¶ 8, 120 N.M. 507, 903 P.2d 249. Here, we must determine whether the probationary period can be tolled, or whether Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was erroneously denied.

A. Standard of Review

{10} We review the district court's application of Section 31–20–8 de novo. See State v. Lara, 2000–NMCA–073, ¶ 4, 129 N.M. 391, 9 P.3d 74 (stating that the interpretation of a statute is an issue of law to be reviewed de novo). Similarly, to the extent it may apply, we also review the application of Rule 5–805(J) de novo. See State v. Maestas, 2007–NMCA–155, ¶ 28, 143 N.M. 104, 173 P.3d 26.

B. We Have Not Previously Decided the District Court's Jurisdiction

{11} The State urges us to continue with what it characterizes as an "issue of jurisdiction already implicitly resolved in the first appeal" based on the law of the case doctrine. See State ex rel. King v. UU Bar Ranch Ltd. P'ship, 2009–NMSC–010, ¶¶ 20–27, 145 N.M. 769, 205 P.3d 816 (outlining law of the case doctrine). If applicable, this doctrine is one that is applied with flexibility. See also Reese v. State, 1987–NMSC–110, ¶ 5, 106 N.M. 505, 745 P.2d 1153 ("[T]he law of the case is...