Date: 01-23-2016

Case Style: State Of New Mexico v. Begay

Case Number: 33,588

Judge: Timothy L Garcia

Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Plaintiff's Attorney: Hector H. Balderas, Jacqueline R. Medina

Defendant's Attorney: Jorge A. Alvarado, Sergio Viscoli, David Henderson

Description: Defendant Trevor Begay was convicted of battery in the San Juan County
11 Magistrate Court and sentenced to 182 days of imprisonment with credit for eleven
12 days of time served. The magistrate court suspended his sentence and ordered that
13 Defendant serve 171 days of supervised probation. Defendant violated the terms of
14 his probation and could not be located to answer for this violation until after the
15 period of his suspended sentence expired. When he was finally brought back before
16 the magistrate court, the court determined that Section 31-21-15(C) permitted it to toll
17 the running of Defendant’s sentence. As a result, the magistrate court revoked
18 Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in
19 prison. Defendant appealed to the district court, which reached the same conclusion
3
1 and affirmed the magistrate court. Defendant now appeals to this Court, asserting that
2 the tolling provision cannot be applied to Defendant because his conviction was
3 obtained in the magistrate court.
4 DISCUSSION
5 Statutory Interpretation Principles
6 {3} We review statutory interpretation issues de novo. State v. Nozie, 2009-NMSC
7 018, ¶ 28, 146 N.M. 142, 207 P.3d 1119. Our “primary goal” in interpreting a statute
8 “is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” State v. Morales,
9 2010-NMSC-026, ¶ 6, 148 N.M. 305, 236 P.3d 24 (internal quotation marks and
10 citation omitted).
11 In doing so, we examine the plain language of the statute as well as the 12 context in which it was promulgated, including the history of the statute 13 and the object and purpose the Legislature sought to accomplish. We 14 must take care to avoid adoption of a construction that would render the 15 statute’s application absurd or unreasonable or lead to injustice or 16 contradiction.
17 Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
18 Historical Context of the Probation and Parole Act and the Magistrate Court
19 {4} Our Legislature originally enacted “The Parole Act of 1955” to provide for “the
20 release to the community of an inmate of a [s]tate correctional institution [prior to the
21 expiration of his term], by the decision of a parole board . . ., [and] subject to
22 conditions imposed by the board and to its supervision.” 1955 N.M. Laws, ch. 232,
4
1 §§ 1, 3. The Legislature amended this act in 1963 to include probation, changing its
2 title to the “Probation and Parole Act.” 1963 N.M. Laws, ch. 301, § 1. This
3 amendment defined the term “probation” as “the procedure under which an adult
4 defendant, found guilty of a crime upon verdict or plea, is released by the court
5 without imprisonment under a suspended or deferred sentence and subject to
6 conditions[.]” Id. § 3 (emphasis added); see § 31-21-5(A). The amendment defined
7 “adult” as “any person convicted of a crime by a district court.” 1963 N.M. Laws, ch.
8 301, § 3 (emphasis added); see § 31-21-5(F). These definitions have remained
9 unchanged since the 1963 amendment was enacted. See § 31-21-5(A), (F).
10 Furthermore, the 1963 amendment created the tolling provision at issue in this case,
11 which has also remained unchanged.
12 At any time during probation[,] . . . the court may issue a warrant 13 for the arrest of a probationer for violation of any of the conditions of 14 release. . . .
15 . . .
16 If it is found that a warrant for the return of a probationer cannot 17 be served, the probationer is a fugitive from justice. After hearing upon 18 return, if it appears that he has violated the provisions of his release, the 19 court shall determine whether the time from the date of violation to the 20 date of his arrest, or any part of it, shall be counted as time served on 21 probation.
22 1963 N.M. Laws, ch. 301, § 13 (emphasis added); see § 31-21-15(A), (C). Thus,
23 when the Legislature enacted these 1963 provisions, it expressly limited the
5
1 application of the tolling provision to “adult” persons convicted of crimes in the
2 district court.
3 {5} In 1963, like today, the district court also had original jurisdiction over all
4 misdemeanors. See N.M. Const. art. VI, § 13. But some misdemeanors could instead
5 be tried by “magistrates[,]” also known as “justices of the peace[,]” NMSA 1953,
6 §§ 36-2-1, -5 (1961) (providing magistrates/justices of the peace jurisdiction over
7 misdemeanors punishable by a maximum fine of $100 or six months imprisonment),
8 or by a “municipal magistrate court[,]” NMSA 1953, §§ 37-1-1 to -2 (1961)
9 (providing a municipal magistrate court jurisdiction over offenses under municipal
10 ordinances). The Legislature did not create the present day “magistrate court” system
11 until 1968, five years after it created the tolling provision. See 1968 N.M. Laws, ch.
12 62, §§ 3, 49 (establishing the “ ‘magistrate court’ as a court of limited original
13 jurisdiction within the judicial department of the state government” and limiting its
14 criminal jurisdiction to misdemeanors punishable by a maximum fine of $100 or up
15 to six months imprisonment); see also N.M. Const. art. VI, § 26 (authorizing and
16 directing the Legislature in 1966 to “establish a magistrate court to exercise limited
17 original jurisdiction as may be provided by law”). In creating the current magistrate
18 court system in 1968, the Legislature “abolished” the office of justice of the peace
19 and transferred its jurisdiction, powers, and duties to the magistrate court. 1968 N.M.
6
1 Laws, ch. 62, § 40. Finally, although the Legislature later amended Section 31-20-5
2 in 1984 to require the magistrate court to order probation when it defers or suspends
3 a sentence, 1984 N.M. Laws, ch. 106, § 2, it did not amend the Probation and Parole
4 Act to extend the tolling provision to magistrate court convictions.
5 {6} Viewing the plain language of the Probation and Parole Act and considering
6 the totality of the historical considerations, we conclude that the Legislature intended
7 to limit the tolling provision to “adult” persons who were convicted in the district
8 court, as opposed to persons convicted by magistrates, even though the magistrate
9 court had concurrent jurisdiction over crimes punishable by a maximum fine of $100
10 and six months imprisonment. Compare NMSA 1953, §§ 36-2-1, -5, with 1968 N.M.
11 Laws, ch. 62, §§ 3, 49. The Legislature’s decision in this regard does not appear
12 unreasonable or to have created an absurd or unjust result, at least at the time the
13 tolling provision was created. As Defendant suggests, the Legislature may have
14 chosen to limit the tolling provision in this manner because (1) convictions obtained
15 by magistrates (and, later, the magistrate court) only involved minor crimes with less
16 severe punishment implications than the more serious convictions addressed by the
17 district court; and (2) the burden of injecting an additional administrative process and
18 additional inmates into our magistrate court system arising from probation violations
19 involving only minor offenses may well outweigh the public benefits achieved
7
1 through these courts of limited criminal jurisdiction. Whatever the reasons, such
2 policy decisions are primarily within the domain of the Legislature. See Hartford Ins.
3 Co. v. Cline, 2006-NMSC-033, ¶ 8, 140 N.M. 16, 139 P.3d 176 (“It is the particular
4 domain of the [L]egislature, as the voice of the people, to make public policy. Elected
5 executive officials and executive agencies also make policy, to a lesser extent, as
6 authorized by the [C]onstitution or the [L]egislature. The judiciary, however, is not
7 as directly and politically responsible to the people as are the legislative and
8 executive branches of government.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation
9 omitted)). Although it seems that the Legislature’s decision in 1984 to require the
10 magistrate court to order probation when deferring or suspending a sentence would
11 have been logically followed by an amendment to the Probation and Parole Act to
12 provide that the term “probation” under the Act also applies to persons convicted in
13 magistrate court, we cannot judicially amend the Probation and Parole Act to reach
14 this result. See id.; see also Eskew v. Nat’l Farmers Union Ins. Co., 2000-NMCA
15 093, ¶ 17, 129 N.M. 667, 11 P.3d 1229 (“A court cannot judicially amend a statute[.]”
16 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
17 {7} In support of the State’s position that the Probation and Parole Act’s tolling
18 provision applies to persons convicted in magistrate court, it notes that Section 31-21
19 9(A) of the Probation and Parole Act recognizes that the magistrate court, as well as
8
1 the district court, may order a presentence report from the director of the field
2 services division of the corrections department. We are not convinced that this 1972
3 amendment shows that the Legislature also meant to allow the tolling provision to
4 apply to magistrate court convictions, because the Legislature did not require the
5 magistrate court to order probation until 1984. See 1984 N.M. Laws, ch. 106, § 2.
6 Also, the State’s argument concerning the statement contained in Section 31-21-18
7 that the provisions of the Probation and Parole Act “apply to all persons who, at the
8 effective date, are on probation” ignores the Act’s definitions of “probation” and
9 “adult” as limited to persons convicted in the district court. Section 31-21-5(A), (F).
10 Finally, we are not persuaded by the State’s reliance on this Court’s statement in State
11 v. Candelaria that “allowance of . . . a variation in penalty based on the pure
12 happenstance of where a case is tried would be an unreasonable result, which we must
13 avoid in interpreting our statutes.” 1991-NMCA-107, ¶ 8, 113 N.M. 288, 825 P.2d
14 221. In Candelaria, this Court determined that the statute at issue had two potential
15 interpretations and declined to adopt the interpretation that would create such a
16 variation in penalty. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. Here, the Probation and Parole Act’s language is not
17 open to varying interpretations; the tolling provision plainly applies only to “adult”
18 persons convicted in the district court.

Outcome: We reverse the district court’s order and remand the case to the district court
for an order requiring the magistrate court to withdraw its amended judgment and
sentence and for the further entry of an order certifying that Defendant is relieved of “any obligations imposed on him . . . and has satisfied his criminal liability for the crime” as required under Section 31-20-8.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: