State v. Horton

• Decision Date: 15 February 2008
• Docket Number: No. 26,504.,26,504.
• Citation: 144 N.M. 71,2008 NMCA 061,183 P.3d 956
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gabriel HORTON, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

183 P.3d 956

2008 NMCA 061

144 N.M. 71

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gabriel HORTON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 26,504.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

February 15, 2008.

Certiorari Denied, No. 30,985, April 1, 2008.

Gary K. King, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, M. Victoria Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant.

John Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Joseph P. Walsh, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.

OPINION

PICKARD, Judge.

{1} In this case, we decide whether the State has a right to appeal the decision of the district judge involving Defendant's sentence for a misdemeanor. As the appeal is not from a suppression of evidence or a dismissal of one or more counts of a complaint, indictment, or information, see NMSA 1978, § 39-3-3(B) (1972) (providing the statutory authority for these two types of appeals by the State in criminal cases), we must decide whether the State is appealing from a disposition contrary to law, see State v. Santillanes, 96 N.M. 482, 485-86, 632 P.2d 359, 362-63 (Ct.App.1980) (holding that in addition to statutory appeals, the State has a constitutional right to appeal a disposition contrary to law), rev'd in part on other grounds, 96 N.M. 477, 632 P.2d 354 (1981). Thus, as a practical matter, we must decide the merits of the issues the State raises in order to determine if it has a constitutional right to appeal.

{2} We hold that under the circumstances of this case, the district judge could properly determine that defense counsel's assurances to Defendant that he would be eligible to earn good time credits, despite the fact that such eligibility was subject to the committing judge's discretion, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and provided grounds for relief. We further hold that when Defendant asked both the committing magistrate judge and the district judge to authorize the earning of good time or to allow him to withdraw his plea, and when the State did not object to the requested relief except on the ground that the committing magistrate judge was entitled to exercise discretion to disallow good time, we will uphold the district judge's decision to authorize the earning of good time. We therefore dismiss the State's appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

{3} Pursuant to a plea bargain in which a felony charge was dismissed, Defendant pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. The plea and disposition agreement stated that Defendant was to be sentenced to 364 days in the county jail with none suspended or deferred and no fine imposed. Prior to entry of the plea, defense counsel told Defendant that he would earn good time in the county jail such that he could get out of jail in six months with good behavior. Defense counsel did not discuss his understanding or what he told Defendant with either the prosecutor or the magistrate judge who took the plea. Further, based on his experience in another part of the state where he was a prosecutor and where good time was routinely allowed in order "to clear out the jails," the prosecutor erroneously assumed at the time that this was also a routine practice in the magistrate court in this case, although the prosecutor did not mention that assumption to either the magistrate judge or defense counsel.

{4} After the magistrate judge sentenced Defendant to 364 "mandatory" days in jail, Defendant filed a motion to amend the judgment and sentence to eliminate the word "mandatory" as violating the plea agreement or, in the alternative, to rescind the plea and disposition agreement. The basis for the motion was that the jail administrator interprets the word "mandatory" to mean that a defendant is not allowed to earn good time. When the magistrate denied both forms of relief, Defendant appealed to the district court.

{5} In opposition to Defendant's argument that he should either be given a sentence in accordance with his expectations or be allowed to withdraw his plea, the prosecutor argued that NMSA 1978, § 33-3-9(A) (1995) gave the magistrate judge discretion as to whether to allow good time and, because the plea agreement did not contain any provision stripping the magistrate judge of this discretion, relief should be denied. The prosecutor made this argument notwithstanding his own unexpressed assumption and the understanding of Defendant's attorney that he conveyed to Defendant that Defendant would, with good behavior, serve only half of his 364-day sentence. The district judge found that the basis of the bargain was that Defendant be allowed to earn good time and ordered the magistrate judge to strike the word "mandatory" from the judgment and sentence. On remand, the magistrate judge struck the word "mandatory," but inserted a provision stating that Defendant would not be allowed good time.

{6} Defendant again appealed, and the district judge again ruled in his favor, entering an order allowing Defendant to earn good time. It is from this order that the State appeals, originally contending only that the terms of the plea agreement did not reasonably permit either Defendant or his counsel an understanding that Defendant would be allowed to earn good time and therefore the magistrate judge was within his discretion under Section 33-3-9(A) to disallow good time. See State v. Orquiz, 2003-NMCA-089, ¶ 7, 134 N.M. 157, 74 P.3d 91 (stating that plea agreements are interpreted according to what the defendant reasonably understood).

{7} The State's brief in chief did not contend that relief is limited to withdrawal of the plea as opposed to an order of what amounts to specific performance. We entered an order directing the parties to file supplemental briefs addressed to whether the district judge's ruling might have been right for the wrong reason, because the undisputed facts indicated that Defendant's plea was involuntary or the result of ineffective assistance of counsel and that enforcement of what the district judge found to be a gentlemen's agreement between the prosecutor and defense counsel was proper as a matter of fairness, particularly since the State never argued below that Defendant's remedy should be limited to plea withdrawal. Our order for supplemental briefing was based on the well-established proposition that a decision of the district court will be upheld on appeal if it is right for the wrong reasons. See Westland Dev. Co. v. Romero, 117 N.M. 292, 293, 871 P.2d 388, 389 (Ct.App. 1994) ("An appellate court will affirm a lower court's ruling if right for any reason."); see also Shultz v. Ramey, 64 N.M. 366, 369, 328 P.2d 937, 938 (1958) ("Review is for correction of an erroneous result, rather than merely to approve or disapprove the grounds on which it is based."); State ex rel. State Highway Dep't v. Strosnider, 106 N.M. 608, 612, 747 P.2d 254, 258 (Ct.App.1987) ("[A] correct decision of the trial court will not be reversed if under any reasonable view of the facts and law, the judgment is proper."). The supplemental briefs have now been filed, and we answer the State's contentions in both its original brief and in its supplemental brief.

DISCUSSION

{8} The statute pursuant to which the State contends that Defendant's sentence with good time allowed is contrary to law is Section 33-3-9. That section provides:

The sheriff or jail administrator of any county, with the approval of the committing judge or presiding judge, may grant any person imprisoned in the county jail a deduction of time from the term of his sentence for good behavior and industry and shall establish rules for the accrual of "good time". Deductions of time shall not exceed one-half of the term of the prisoner's original sentence.

Section 33-3-9(A). Thus, to the extent that the State argues that this statute requires the approval of the "committing judge or presiding judge" before good time is allowed, we agree with its reading of the statute. Throughout this opinion, we use the word "allow" to mean the situation where the committing or presiding judge has either expressly or implicitly approved so that the sheriff or jail administrator may grant appropriate deductions. However, the existence of the sentencing judge's discretion to either allow or disallow good time does not alone answer the question of whether the district judge's disposition was contrary to law. We must also consider the unique facts and posture of this case.

{9} Our cases have limited the construction of "disposition contrary to law" to situations in which a mandatory statute was being violated; dispositions in which the State has a strong interest in enforcing its statutes, rules of court, or lawful jury verdicts; or dispositions in which a district court's decision affects matters of grave importance. See, e.g., State v. Aguilar, 95 N.M. 578, 579, 624 P.2d 520, 521 (1981) (involving the district judge's refusal to impose a statutorily mandated firearm enhancement on the ground that the district judge believed the statute was unconstitutional; noting that "the State does not have an absolute right to appeal in every situation in which it may feel `aggrieved' by a trial court's ruling" and permitting the appeal on the ground of the "State's strong interest in the enforcement of its statutes"); State v. Griffin, 117 N.M. 745, 747-50, 877 P.2d 551, 553-56 (1994) (acknowledging the state's strong interest in upholding lawful jury verdicts and limiting state's appeals from grants of motions for new trials to pure questions of law); State v. Abril, 2003-NMCA-111, ¶¶ 20, 22, 134 N.M. 326, 76 P.3d 644 (involving a case in which the district court did not follow a statute making it mandatory to indicate "whether or not" the defendant had committed a serious violent offense); In re Christobal V., 2002-NMCA-077, ¶¶ 1, 8, 132 N.M. 474, 50 P.3d 569 (involving a judge who reduced a child's sentence long after the time for doing so had expired); State v. Armijo, 118 N.M. 802,...