Driving on a Suspended/Revoked License

 

 

Have you been arrested for driving on a suspended/revoked license in Albuquerque, New Mexico?

 

WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES FOR DRIVING ON A REVOKED/SUSPENDED LICENSE IN NEW MEXICO?

 

The State of New Mexico lays a heavy hand on individuals that are convicted of driving on a revoked/suspended license. A defendant that is convicted of the offense faces a possible sentence between 4 and 364 days in jail, or an alternative sentencing program such as CCP.  If convicted the defendant faces a “minimum mandatory” of 4 days in jail, and a maximum of 364 days, with the added possibility of a fine totaling up to $1,000. Additionally, the defendant’s vehicle can be “booted” for thirty days with the defendant footing the bill for the immobilization unit that is used on the vehicle.

If a defendant’s license was revoked due to a conviction for driving while intoxicated, driving under the influence of drugs, or violating the Implied Consent Act, the penalties above increase to a minimum mandatory of 7 days in jail, with a maximum of 364 days, and a fine between $300 and $1,0000.

 

DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED/REVOKED LICENSE IN NEW MEXICO — WHAT DOES THE STATE NEED TO PROVE FOR A CONVICTION?

 

In order to be convicted for driving with a revoked license the state must prove several elements: (1) that any person, (2) was driving, (3) a motor vehicle, (4) on any public highway in New Mexico; (5) when the person’s privilege to drive was revoked due to: (A) a conviction for DWI, (B) An administrative revocation resulting from the Implied Consent Act; and (6) that the person knew, or should have known, that his or her license was revoked.

Basically the state must prove that the defendant was driving with a revoked license and that the defendant knew – or should have known – that the license was revoked due to a DWI conviction, or license revocation stemming from the Implied Consent Act, such as the MVD Revocation Hearing.

The sixth element listed above – the requirement for the prosecution to show that the defendant either knew or should have known that the defendant’s license was revoked – is the most difficult element for the prosecution to prove. In this respect, the prosecution is not required to prove direct evidence of the defendant’s subjective mental state and can use circumstantial evidence to demonstrate that the defendant should have known that the license was revoked.

In one New Mexico case the court held that the following evidence was sufficient to support a reasonable inference that the defendant charged with driving on a revoked license knew at the time that the offense occurred that the defendant’s license was revoked: (1) Certified copies of MVD records showed that two separate notices of revocation were sent by certified mail to defendant’s home address after he received two separate convictions for DWI; (2) Both notices were unreturned to MVD; (3) Both notices were sent to the same address listed on defendant’s home address on a traffic citation issued personally to defendant; (4) Defendant did not challenge the accuracy of the address that was used on the mailings.

In addition to the elements listed above, nine months prior to his arrest for driving with a revoked license, defendant was arrested for DWI and refused to submit to a blood alcohol test. The evidence showed that the DWI arresting officer had complied with the Implied Consent Act, by advising defendant that failure to submit to a chemical test would result in a revocation of his license for one year.

In another New Mexico case the court used the following evidence to prove that the defendant either knew or should have known that at the time of the arrest the defendant’s license was revoked: (1) Handwritten Notice of Revocation that was delivered to Defendant, (2) Defendant signed an affidavit acknowledging that by failing to obtain an interlock devise he would be committing the offense of driving on a revoked license, (3) When asked about the status of his New Mexico license Defendant told the arresting officer “. . . it’s no good, that’s why I’m using my Arkansas license.”

Based on the facts above, both New Mexico courts ultimately ruled that there was enough evidence to conclude – beyond a reasonable doubt – that the defendant should have known that the defendant’s license was revoked at the time that the defendant was arrested for the offense of driving on a revoked license.

The key to the New Mexico law discussed above is that the prosecution is required to prove – beyond a reasonable doubt – that the defendant that is charged with driving on a revoked license knew, or should have known, that the defendant’s license was actually revoked at the time that the offense occurred. Most importantly, the prosecution’s hands are tied by the Federal Rules of Evidence – which governs the admissibility of evidence – when attempting to introduce enough credible evidence to demonstrate that the defendant either knew or should have known that they were driving on a revoked license.

 

(505) SANCHEZ IS HERE TO ANSWER ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED/ REVOKED LICENSE IN ALBUQUERQUE

 

Do you still have questions about driving on a suspended or revoked license in Albuquerque, New Mexico?  Dealing with driving on a revoked or suspended license in Albuquerque  requires the experienced hand and knowledge that comes with years of courtroom practice.  Matthew Legan Sanchez has the experience needed to handle your case.  Sanchez can be reached by calling (505) SANCHEZ.