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, convicted of a sex offense in Texas in 1988, was required to register annually as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) after moving to New Mexico. While the Defendant complied with registration requirements in 2003 and 2004, he failed to register in 2005. The Defendant attributed this failure to a protocol implemented by the Curry County Sheriff's Department (CCSD), which restricted registration to specific hours on Wednesdays, arguing that this protocol obstructed his ability to register (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court, Curry County: The Defendant was convicted of failing to register as required under SORNA.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the CCSD's registration protocol, which limited registration to specific hours, was inconsistent with SORNA and obstructed his ability to comply. He contended that the protocol represented an unauthorized regulation that undermined the legislative intent of SORNA (paras 1, 5, 10).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the CCSD's protocol was a reasonable implementation of SORNA, balancing the need for efficient resource allocation with the statutory requirements. The Plaintiff argued that the protocol did not prevent the Defendant from registering and was consistent with legislative intent (paras 8-13).
Legal Issues
- Was the registration protocol implemented by the Curry County Sheriff's Department inconsistent with SORNA and an unauthorized regulation?
- Did the protocol obstruct the Defendant's ability to comply with SORNA, warranting the overturning of his conviction?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction, finding the CCSD's registration protocol consistent with SORNA and rejecting the Defendant's arguments (para 14).
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Wechsler and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
The Court conducted a de novo review, focusing on statutory interpretation to determine legislative intent. It found that SORNA delegates authority to local sheriff's departments to implement registration procedures, as the statute does not specify the time, place, or manner of registration (paras 6-8). The Court presumed the validity of the CCSD's protocol, noting that it allocated 156 hours annually for registration and provided accommodations during high-demand periods, such as the end of the year (paras 9-11).
The Court concluded that the protocol balanced public interest in maintaining an accurate registry with the private interest of registrants in having reasonable opportunities to comply. It rejected the Defendant's argument that the protocol obstructed registration, emphasizing that SORNA does not prioritize the convenience of registrants over resource allocation concerns. The Court held that the protocol was consistent with SORNA's legislative intent and upheld the Defendant's conviction (paras 12-14).