STATE OF NEW MEXICO v. JESSE LAWRENCE LENTE

Albuquerque, NM - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant JESSE LAWRENCE LENTE with denying his motion for reduction of sentence.

On appeal, Defendant maintains the district court erred by concluding that it

2 lacked jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence, filed

3 under Rule 5-801(A) within ninety days of our Supreme Court’s mandate on its

4 reversal of the habeas relief granted by the district court. [DS 5] We proposed to hold

5 that our Supreme Court’s mandate, issued on its reversal of habeas relief, does not fall

6 within any of the actions contemplated by Rule 5-801(A) that would allow or invoke

7 the district court’s discretion to reduce Defendant’s sentence.

8 {3} As set forth in our notice, Rule 5-801(A) requires a motion to reduce a sentence

9 to be filed within ninety days: (1) after the sentence is imposed; (2) after receipt by the

10 district court of a mandate affirming the judgment or dismissing the appeal; or (3)

11 after judgment on direct appeal from an appellate court denies review or otherwise

12 upholds a judgment. The committee commentary instructs that the rule is used to

13 invoke only the district court’s discretionary sentencing power.

14 {4} In response to our notice, Defendant contends that his motion falls under the

15 second scenario, “within ninety (90) days after receipt by the court of a mandate

16 issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal.” See Rule 5-

17 801(A). [MIO 3] Defendant asserts that there is no specificity within the rule to

18 exclude post-on-direct appeals from the district court’s consideration, and our

19 Supreme Court’s decision in this case has the effect of upholding the judgment. [MIO

20 3]

3

1 {5} We are not persuaded by Defendant’s reasoning. Our Supreme Court’s mandate

2 upon reversal of habeas relief is not a “mandate issued upon affirmance of the

3 judgment or dismissal of the appeal.” See Rule 5-801(A). In the appeal, our Supreme

4 Court examined the habeas proceedings, disagreed with the district court’s assessment

5 of Defendant’s collateral attack on his February 2003 convictions, and reversed the

6 district court’s attempt to reopen and alter its original judgment and sentence. Our

7 Supreme Court’s mandate states: “this cause is remanded for other proceedings, if

8 any, consistent and in conformity with the order of this Court.” [2 RP 488] On

9 remand, to effectuate the reversal mandated by the Supreme Court, the district court

10 entered an order vacating its previous order granting the petition for writ of habeas

11 corpus, [2 RP 508] the only action authorized by the opinion and mandate. We are not

12 persuaded that our Supreme Court’s mandate from the reversal of habeas relief did

13 anything to reopen the original judgment and sentence or otherwise invoke the district

14 court’s discretionary power over its original judgment and sentence.

15 {6} Our decision is based on the plain language of the rule and its apparent purpose.

16 To the extent Defendant advocates for a meaning of the rule that is inconsistent with

17 our reading of the plain language and purpose of the rule, he should do so in the

18 Supreme Court.

For the reasons stated in this opinion and in our notice, we affirm the district

20 court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to reduce the sentence.