This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.
Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum
opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain
computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of
Appeals and does not include the filing date.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. NO. 32,910
5 RAYMOND CERVANTES,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Charles W. Brown, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 Maris Veidemanis, Assistant Attorney General
11 Santa Fe, NM
12 for Appellee
13 Law Office of Meredith Baker LLC
14 Meredith M. Baker
15 Albuquerque, NM
16 L. Helen Bennett
17 Albuquerque, NM
18 for Appellant
19 MEMORANDUM OPINION
1 WECHSLER, Judge.
2 {1} Defendant Raymond Cervantes appeals from the district court’s judgment,
3 sentence, partially suspended sentence, and commitment to the New Mexico
4 Corrections Department. The district court sentenced Defendant pursuant to an
5 habitual offender enhancement for failure to abide by conditions of release adopted
6 under a plea agreement. Defendant argues on appeal that: (1) the district court erred
7 by taking new evidence of additional guilt based on probable cause contrary to the
8 plea agreement; (2) the charges against him must be dismissed based on his
9 intellectual disability and mental incompetency; and (3) the State is estopped to deny
10 his mental incompetence as a result of the State’s stipulation to dismissals of other
11 criminal actions against him. We remand to the district court for a determination as
12 to Defendant’s competency to stand trial in this case. Should the district court
13 determine that Defendant was competent to stand trial, we affirm the district court’s
14 sentencing for the reasons discussed herein.
15 BACKGROUND
16 {2} Defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine, entering into a repeat offender
17 plea and disposition agreement. Before he was sentenced, Defendant filed a motion
18 to withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion, finding that Defendant
19 “knowingly and voluntarily” entered the plea. Defendant filed a motion for
2
1 reconsideration, which the district court also denied. Defendant sought an
2 interlocutory appeal of the denial of the motion, and this Court denied the request.
3 {3} After this case was resolved by plea agreement, Defendant was charged with
4 additional crimes in another case assigned to another district judge. In the proceedings
5 resulting from the new charges, the other judge held a hearing concerning Defendant’s
6 mental competence. At that hearing, an expert witness testified that Defendant had an
7 IQ of 70 and was not competent to stand trial. That judge ordered that Defendant was
8 not competent to stand trial. Thereafter, in two other consolidated cases, relying on
9 this order of lack of competence, a third district judge ordered that Defendant was not
10 competent to stand trial.
11 COMPETENCY
12 {4} Defendant contends in this appeal that, even though the determination
13 concerning his competency was made in another, subsequent proceeding, because of
14 his incapacity, he was not able to understand the proceedings or have the ability to
15 make a rational defense in this case. Defendant thus contends that he should not be
16 subject to incarceration. Defendant requests that the charges be dismissed, or,
17 alternatively, that this proceeding be remanded to the district court to determine
18 Defendant’s competency as a factual matter.
3
1 {5} The State agrees with Defendant that this case should be remanded for a factual
2 determination of Defendant’s competency. We also agree. See NMSA 1978, § 31-9-1
3 (1993) (“Whenever it appears that there is a question as to the defendant’s competency
4 to proceed in a criminal case, any further proceeding in the cause shall be suspended
5 until the issue is determined.”). In light of the previous determination of lack of
6 competency by the district judge in the subsequent case, and because the district judge
7 in this case is not bound by that determination, we remand so that a factual record can
8 be made in this case for a competency determination.
9 SENTENCING
10 {6} Should Defendant’s competency evaluation result in a ruling that Defendant
11 was competent to stand trial, we affirm the district court’s sentencing for the reasons
12 discussed herein. The plea and disposition agreement limited Defendant’s habitual
13 offender enhancement to four years. The State filed a supplemental motion to increase
14 Defendant’s habitual offender incarceration because Defendant failed to abide by the
15 conditions of release.
16 {7} The plea and disposition agreement provides in part that
17 if [D]efendant violates any law after entering this plea and before
18 completing the sentence in this case, [D]efendant will be subject to
19 habitual offender proceedings[.] . . . The State may bring habitual
20 offender proceedings if the violation is admitted or proven, even if
21 probation or parole is not revoked or . . . [D]efendant is not convicted of
22 the new crime.
4
1 Defendant argues on appeal, on the basis of this provision, that there was not adequate
2 proof to support the enhanced sentence because the district court found that Defendant
3 possessed stolen property, a violation of law and conditions of release based only on
4 the probable cause provided to the district court for the issuance of the warrants for
5 Defendant’s arrests. Defendant points to the language of the plea and disposition
6 agreement that permits the State to “bring habitual offender proceedings if the
7 violation is admitted or proven[.]”
8 {8} Defendant’s argument, however, focuses only upon the aspect of the plea and
9 disposition agreement that allows habitual offender enhancement for a violation of law
10 without addressing the aspect that allows enhancement for a violation of the condition
11 of release, even without a violation of law. The plea and disposition agreement also
12 provides:
13 I agree that the State may void any sentencing agreement,
14 including any cap on incarceration, OR the [S]tate may withdraw this
15 plea agreement if I:
16 1) violate any laws while pending sentencing; OR
17 2) violate any condition of release; OR
18 ....
19 3) fail to appear for a scheduled court hearing, including but
20 not limited to a sentencing hearing[.]
5
1 {9} In his motion for reconsideration, Defendant raised arguments concerning the
2 level of proof required for a violation of the plea and disposition agreement; and the
3 prosecutor and the district court addressed the arguments at the hearing on the motion
4 for reconsideration. As conditions of release, Defendant was prohibited from leaving
5 Bernalillo County “without prior written permission” from the district court and was
6 required to appear at all scheduled court hearings, including sentencing hearings. At
7 the hearing on the motion for reconsideration, notwithstanding any argument
8 concerning the burden of proof as to a finding of a violation of law, the district court
9 found that the court records indicated that Defendant was arrested in Santa Fe County
10 and that Defendant admitted that he was in Santa Fe County when he was arrested. In
11 addition, the State argued that Defendant “failed to appear, multiple times, at his
12 sentencing hearing.” The district court found that Defendant “[f]ailed to appear for a
13 scheduled [c]ourt hearing” and that such a failure was a violation that allowed the
14 State to “nullify the agreement.” Defendant’s arguments on appeal concerning the
15 adequacy of proof do not pertain to these findings.
16 CONCLUSION
17 {10} We remand to the district court for a determination as to Defendant’s
18 competency to stand trial in this case as well as any other necessary proceedings
6
1 consistent with that determination. Should the district court determine that Defendant
2 was competent to stand trial in this case, we affirm Defendant’s sentencing.
3 {11} IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 ________________________________
5 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
6 WE CONCUR:
7 ________________________________
8 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
9 ________________________________
10 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
7