{
  "id": 1573169,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tom Mix RUSSELL, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Russell",
  "decision_date": "1980-05-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 4633",
  "first_page": "544",
  "last_page": "545",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "94 N.M. 544"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "612 P.2d 1355"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "85 N.M. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2773571
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/85/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.M. 753",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2771435
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/85/0753-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 194,
    "char_count": 2575,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.838,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3783987137863893e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6400012124258981
    },
    "sha256": "1d6cf077ce94a3bf8347b84ff44876240a40a26f55e94c921dfd069cbffb55b2",
    "simhash": "1:922ae74a40c49906",
    "word_count": 423
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:18:16.712923+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WOOD, C. J., and WALTERS, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tom Mix RUSSELL, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nHENDLEY, Judge.\nConvicted of commercial burglary contrary to \u00a7 30-16-3(B), N.M.S.A.1978, and of being a habitual offender pursuant to \u00a7 31 \u2014 18-17(B), N.M.S.A.1978 (Supp.1979), defendant appeals. He contends the trial court erred when it held that it had no discretion to suspend or defer the basic sentence imposed under \u00a7 31-18-15.1, N.M. S.A.1978 (Supp.1979), when it had increased the sentence by one year pursuant to \u00a7 31 \u2014 18-17(B).\nWe calendared this case for summary reversal and the State has filed a timely memorandum in opposition, contending that it was the legislative intent that no part of the basic sentence could be altered when it had been increased pursuant to \u00a7 31-18-17(B). We disagree.\nLegislation is to be given effect as written. State v. McHorse, 85 N.M. 753, 517 P.2d 75 (Ct.App.1973). Where there is an ambiguity, resort may be had to interpretation; but even then, intent is to be determined primarily from the language used. Keller v. City of Albuquerque, 85 N.M. 134, 509 P.2d 1329 (1973). Section 31 \u2014 18-17(B) states that the basic sentence of a habitual offender \u201cshall be increased by one year, and the sentence imposed by this subsection shall not be suspended or deferred.\u201d (Emphasis added.) The sentence imposed by subsection (B) is the additional one year. Compare \u00a7 31-18-16(A), N.M.S.A.1978 (Supp.1979), which states that for firearm enhancement, the basic sentence \u201cshall be increased by one year, and the sentence imposed by this subsection shall be the first year served and shall not be suspended or deferred.\u201d Although it is a question which we do not decide, it would appear that the basic sentence in the firearm enhancement section can be suspended or deferred. We see no policy reason or glean any legislative intent to prohibit the altering of the basic sentence.\nWe hold that \u00a7 31-18-17(B) only prohibits the suspending or deferring of the one year imposed by that section. The trial court erred when it held it had no discretion to suspend or defer the basic sentence imposed.\nThe judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The cause is remanded for reconsideration of sentencing consistent with this opinion.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nWOOD, C. J., and WALTERS, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HENDLEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Serapio L. Jaramillo, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Michael E. Sanchez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "612 P.2d 1355\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tom Mix RUSSELL, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 4633.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMay 29, 1980.\nJohn B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Serapio L. Jaramillo, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nJeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Michael E. Sanchez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0544-01",
  "first_page_order": 580,
  "last_page_order": 581
}