This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was charged with multiple sex offenses, including criminal sexual penetration, enticement of a child, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and criminal sexual contact, involving five victims. The Defendant entered a plea of no contest to some charges under a plea agreement, which dismissed other charges. The Defendant later alleged that his attorney failed to inform him that the plea would almost certainly require him to register as a sex offender under the New Mexico Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) (paras 2-3, 8-9).
Procedural History
- District Court, March 11, 2004: The Defendant was sentenced to five and one-half years of imprisonment and ordered to comply with SORNA. The Defendant's motion to set aside the plea or reconsider the sentence was denied (paras 6-7, 14).
- District Court, February 21, 2005: After additional hearings, the court denied the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea, finding that the defense counsel likely advised the Defendant of the registration requirement (para 14).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his attorney failed to adequately inform him of the mandatory sex offender registration requirement under SORNA, which constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed that this omission rendered his plea involuntary and sought to have the plea set aside (paras 9, 13).
- State-Appellee: Contended that the court had no duty to inform the Defendant of the collateral consequences of his plea, including sex offender registration. It argued that the defense counsel's performance was not deficient and that the Defendant's plea was voluntary (paras 12, 14).
Legal Issues
- Whether defense counsel's failure to advise the Defendant of the mandatory sex offender registration requirement under SORNA constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Whether the Defendant's plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily (paras 1, 15).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of the motion to set aside the plea and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's deficient performance (para 39).
Reasons
Per Bustamante CJ (Robinson and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
The Court held that defense counsel's failure to inform the Defendant of the mandatory sex offender registration requirement under SORNA constituted deficient performance under the two-prong test established in Strickland v. Washington. The Court reasoned that the harsh and virtually certain consequences of sex offender registration necessitate specific advice from defense counsel to ensure that a defendant's plea is knowing and voluntary (paras 20-31).
The Court relied on the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision in State v. Paredez, which held that defense counsel must advise non-citizen defendants of the specific immigration consequences of a plea. The Court extended this principle to sex offender registration, emphasizing that the consequences of SORNA are severe and automatic, and therefore, defense counsel has an affirmative duty to inform defendants of these consequences (paras 22-31).
The Court found that the Defendant's attorney failed to adequately advise him of the registration requirement and instead focused on the possibility of a conditional discharge, which misled the Defendant. However, the Court could not determine from the record whether the Defendant would have chosen to go to trial had he been properly advised. Therefore, the case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing to assess whether the Defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's deficient performance (paras 32-38).