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 accused of embezzling approximately $3,000 from a little league baseball organization. The Defendant entered into a preprosecution diversion agreement (PDA) with the State, which required him to make full restitution of $2,853.98 in monthly installments over 15 months. The Defendant made two payments but failed to make subsequent payments due to financial hardship, including intermittent employment, a low income, and a family of five children relying on food stamps.
Procedural History
- District Court: Upheld the State's termination of the PDA, finding that the Defendant's failure to pay restitution was not deliberate but that alternatives to termination were unavailable under the Preprosecution Diversion Act.
- State v. Jimenez, 110 N.M. 212, 794 P.2d 355 (Ct. App. 1990): The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that termination of the PDA for nonwillful failure to pay restitution violated the principles established in Bearden v. Georgia.
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner (State): Argued that the Court of Appeals' decision contravened Bearden v. Georgia by implying that a PDA could never be terminated for nonwillful failure to pay restitution. The State contended that this would discourage prosecutors from entering into diversion agreements with defendants whose ability to pay restitution is uncertain.
- Respondent (Defendant): Asserted that the termination of the PDA violated his constitutional rights under Bearden v. Georgia, as his failure to pay restitution was due to indigency and not willful noncompliance.
Legal Issues
- Can a preprosecution diversion agreement be terminated solely due to a defendant's nonwillful inability to pay restitution?
- What alternatives to termination must be considered to satisfy the State's legitimate penal interests?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
Reasons
Per Montgomery J. (Sosa CJ. and Franchini J. concurring):
The Court held that the principles established in Bearden v. Georgia apply to the termination of preprosecution diversion agreements. While a PDA may be terminated for nonwillful failure to pay restitution, this is permissible only if no adequate alternatives exist to meet the State's legitimate penal interests.
The Court emphasized that the District Court erred by considering alternatives to imprisonment rather than alternatives to termination of the PDA. Alternatives such as reducing the restitution amount, extending the payment period, or substituting public service for monetary restitution should have been explored.
The Court also noted that the Preprosecution Diversion Act allows restitution to be tailored to a defendant's resources and that the diversion period should be tolled during the pendency of termination proceedings.
The decision of the Court of Appeals was vacated, and the case was remanded to the District Court for a new hearing to consider alternatives to termination that could satisfy the State's penal objectives.