Chronic DWI offender questions plea deals
Judge throws out 1991 Municipal Court conviction; other drunken-driving offenses stand

Natalie Storey | The New Mexican
Posted: Tuesday, November 20, 2007
-
     
   Print   |   Font Size:    

Related Items




advertisement

Richard MacLaurin told a state District Court judge this week that one of his plea deals for a drinking and driving charge was worked out in a backroom at Municipal Court with no judge present and no one to read him his rights.

"Nothing was made clear to me except that we were making an arrangement," MacLaurin said.

MacLaurin's was a familiar story. For many years, Municipal Court sometimes operated without following legal procedures, and as a result, District Court judges are being forced to throw out DWI convictions from Municipal Court, even in cases of habitual offenders.

That is what happened Tuesday when District Judge Michael Vigil ruled that a DWI conviction of MacLaurin's from 1991 should not count against him because the judge could find no evidence that MacLaurin was properly advised of his rights, according to prosecutor Linda Lonsdale.

Old DWI convictions are important in New Mexico because they determine how stiff a sentence for repeat offenders can be. A fourth arrest for DWI in New Mexico is a felony charge, and offenders can have an ignition interlock installed for life and face a mandatory six months in jail.

MacLaurin, 60, has been arrested on DWI charges 10 times, according to court records and arrest records provided by the DWI Resource Center in Albuquerque. Despite his long arrest history, court records show he has been convicted of DWI only three times, and one of those convictions was thrown out Tuesday. He agreed to plead guilty to his two most recent charges, which both occurred in December 2005. He will be sentenced for these charges, his third and fourth convictions, at a later date.

MacLaurin’s lawyer, Dan Marlowe, had also challenged a 1998 conviction from Municipal Court. Marlowe was the lawyer who represented MacLaurin in that case, so Vigil said it should still count for enhancement purposes. Marlowe could not be reached Tuesday, but on Monday, he said the record was “silent” as to whether the Municipal Court judge at the time of MacLaurin’s 1991 plea, Tom Fiorina, read MacLaurin his rights.

"The plea has to be knowing and voluntary, and it has to be on the record," Marlowe said. "It's unfortunate the way things went here, but there's no way around those facts. There's no way around the fact that it's not part of the record."

Lonsdale said she would not speculate on what sentence the state would seek against MacLaurin, who has said he is a veteran and has received treatment for alcoholism.

"A third and fourth is better than a second and a third, but not quite as good as a fourth and a fifth," she said. "But the judge has to evaluate the evidence before him."

Contact Natalie Storey at 986-3026 or nstorey@sfnewmexican.com.






You must register with a valid email address and use your real first-and-last name to comment on this forum. Once you've logged into the system, you'll be able to contribute comments. If you need help logging in or establishing your new user name and password, please write us.For information on our community guidelines and updating your username to meet standards, visit http://sfnm.co/sfnmforum.

All users are expected to abide by the forum rules and and be courteous to other users. Comments can be accepted up to eight days following publication. After that, comments can be read but no new submissions made. Send questions to webeditor@sfnewmexican.com

IMPORTANT: Comments must be posted under your own full, real name. Anonymous comments and those posted under a pseudonym can be removed. Please consult the forum rules. If you have questions, e-mail webeditor@sfnewmexican.com.
comments powered by Disqus




advertisement
advertisement
"));