Summary
The Supreme Court of New Mexico reconsidered the constitutionality of New Mexico's statutory aggravated-sentencing scheme after remand from the United States Supreme Court in light of Cunningham v. California. The court held that judicial findings of aggravating circumstances permitting an upward alteration of the basic sentence violated the Sixth Amendment and declared NMSA 1978, Section 31-18-15.1 facially unconstitutional. The court overruled its prior decision in State v. Lopez.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether New Mexico's statutory procedure allowing a judge to increase a felony's basic sentence upon finding aggravating circumstances violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Whether Section 31-18-15.1 is facially unconstitutional or merely unconstitutional as applied.
- Whether the court should sever or otherwise judicially modify Section 31-18-15.1 to cure the constitutional defect.
- Whether the court's new sentencing rule applies retroactively or only prospectively.
Holdings
- A sentence above the basic sentence authorized solely by the jury's verdict or the defendant's admissions violates the Sixth Amendment when the increased sentence depends on additional facts found by the sentencing judge rather than by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Section 31-18-15.1 is facially unconstitutional because, as written, it requires the sentencing judge to find aggravating circumstances and cannot be applied consistently with the Sixth Amendment.
- The court will not rewrite or surgically modify Section 31-18-15.1; the Legislature must determine how to remedy the constitutional defect.
- The rule announced in this case is a new procedural rule that does not qualify for either Teague exception and therefore applies prospectively only.
Key quotations
“We have no choice but to conclude that Frawley's sentence was altered upwards in contravention of the Sixth Amendment and that we must overrule Lopez.” (172 P.3d at 152)
“Thus, we hold that Frawley was unconstitutionally sentenced when the judge aggravated his third-degree felony sentences from two years to three years based on his findings of certain aggravating circumstances.” (172 P.3d at 153)
“section 31-18-15.1 is facially unconstitutional because, as written, it can never be applied in a manner consistent with the Sixth Amendment.” (172 P.3d at 154)
Factual background
Douglas Frawley was convicted of two third-degree felony counts of negligent child abuse and one misdemeanor count of attempting to commit custodial interference. The basic sentence for each third-degree felony was three years. The sentencing judge found four aggravating circumstances—lack of remorse, the short interval between a prior similar offense and the charged offenses, the pain and fear suffered by the victims and their families, and flight to avoid prosecution—and added one year to each felony sentence. The sentences were imposed consecutively, producing a total term of nine years less one day.
Procedural history
Frawley was convicted of two third-degree felony counts of negligent child abuse and one misdemeanor count of attempted custodial interference. The trial court increased each felony sentence by one year based on judicially found aggravating circumstances. The New Mexico Court of Appeals held the enhancements unconstitutional, but the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed that decision under State v. Lopez and affirmed the trial court. The United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration after Cunningham. On reconsideration, the New Mexico Supreme Court overruled Lopez, declared Section 31-18-15.1 facially unconstitutional, and remanded for resentencing.
Remand instructions
The district court must resentence Frawley on his third-degree felony convictions to no more than the basic sentence of three years.