A. The court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine any controverted question of fact regarding whether the defendant has been convicted of two violent sexual offenses. Either party to the sentencing proceeding may demand a jury sentencing proceeding.

B. A jury sentencing proceeding shall be conducted as soon as practicable by the original trial judge before the original trial jury. A nonjury sentencing proceeding shall be conducted as soon as practicable by the original trial judge. In the case of a plea of guilty, the sentencing proceeding shall be conducted as soon as practicable by the original trial judge or by the original trial jury, upon demand of the defendant.

C. In a jury sentencing proceeding, the judge shall give appropriate instructions and allow arguments. In a nonjury sentencing proceeding, or upon a plea of guilty when the defendant has not demanded a jury, the judge shall allow arguments and determine the verdict.

History: 1978 Comp., § 31-18-26, enacted by Laws 1996, ch. 79, § 2.

Construction. — Although the statutory language "as soon as practicable" in Subsection B means that the life enhancement proceeding must be conducted without undue delay, the legislature did not intend to impose a specific time limitation on the commencement of life enhancement proceedings. State v. Massengill, 2003-NMCA-024, 133 N.M. 263, 62 P.3d 354, cert. denied, 133 N.M. 126, 61 P.3d 835.

Continuance. — In a prosecution of defendant for criminal sexual penetration and abuse of a child by endangerment, defendant's argument that the trial court erred by granting a continuance of a life enhancement sentencing proceeding was rejected on appeal, where defendant failed to demonstrate that he suffered actual prejudice in connection with the continuance of the life enhancement proceeding or that the delay violated his rights to due process or a speedy trial. State v. Massengill, 2003-NMCA-024, 133 N.M. 263, 62 P.3d 354, cert. denied, 133 N.M. 126, 61 P.3d 835.