legislative purpose underlying the enactment of this state’s habitual offender statutes. See State v. Linam, 93 N.M. 307, 309, 600 P.2d 253, 255 (1979) (“the increased penalty is held in terrorem over the [defendant] for the purpose of effecting his reformation and preventing further and subsequent offenses”); see also State v. Baldonado, 79 N.M. 175, 176, 441 P.2d 215, 216 (Ct.App.1968) (recognizing that habitual offender law is designed to protect society and to inhibit “repetition of criminal acts by individuals against the peace and dignity of the state”). Contrary to Defendant’s argument, the age of her prior felony convictions does not vitiate the use of such convictions to enhance her current sentences. See State v. Haddenham, 110 N.M. 149, 157, 793 P.2d 279, 287 (Ct.App.1990) (<HOLDING>). Nor has Defendant demonstrated how the
holding that when a defendant admits prior convictions at a habitual offender hearing he waives any complaints about the validity of the prior convictions holding that under habitual felony offender statute a sentence includes the sanction of probation holding our habitual offender act does not limit enhancement to prior felony convictions within a certain time holding that under the 1991 version of the habitual offender statute defendant could not receive habitual offender sentence for life felony holding that to constitute a prior conviction for purposes of the habitual felony offender act the defendant must have been adjudicated guilty before the present crime was committed