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, while intoxicated, forcibly touched his crying daughter's chest and vaginal area and dragged her into his bedroom until interrupted by his nephew. The incident led to charges of second-degree kidnapping and fourth-degree criminal sexual contact. The Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree kidnapping under a plea agreement (para 2).
Procedural History
- District Court, Otero County: The trial judge sentenced the Defendant to 12 years, aggravated by one-third due to lack of remorse, threat to society, and inability to rehabilitate. The judge also classified the offense as a "serious violent offense" under New Mexico's Earned Meritorious Deductions Act (EMDA) (para 2).
- Court of Appeals, First Appeal: The Court summarily reversed and remanded, holding that the fact the victim was the Defendant's daughter alone was insufficient to classify the offense as a serious violent one under the EMDA (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that under Apprendi v. New Jersey, both the aggravation of the sentence and the classification of the offense as a serious violent one must be determined by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the trial court's findings regarding the serious violent offense were insufficient (para 3-4).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the trial judge's findings and the application of the EMDA were constitutional and consistent with New Mexico law, arguing that Apprendi does not apply to the EMDA.
Legal Issues
- Does Apprendi v. New Jersey require that aggravation of a sentence and classification of an offense as a serious violent one under the EMDA be determined by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt?
- What findings are required under Section 33-2-34(L)(4)(n) of the EMDA to classify an offense as a serious violent one?
Disposition
- The Defendant's 12-year sentence was affirmed (para 19).
- The trial court's classification of the offense as a serious violent one was reversed and remanded for reconsideration under the proper standard (para 19).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Bosson CJ. concurring):
The Court held that Apprendi does not apply to the EMDA because the Act does not increase the statutory maximum sentence but instead affects the amount of time a prisoner may reduce their sentence through good conduct credits. The EMDA's provisions were deemed more akin to sentencing factors than elements of a separate crime (paras 5-11).
The Court analyzed the statutory language of Section 33-2-34(L)(4)(n) and determined that for an offense to qualify as a serious violent one, the trial judge must find that the offense was committed in a physically violent manner with either an intent to cause serious harm or recklessness in the face of knowledge that the acts were likely to result in serious harm. The trial court's findings in this case were insufficient as they focused on the Defendant's past behavior and drinking habits rather than the nature of the offense and resulting harm (paras 12-17).
The case was remanded to allow the trial court to make the requisite findings under the clarified standard, with the State permitted to present additional evidence (para 18).
Per Bustamante J. (specially concurring):
Bustamante J. agreed with the result but argued for a narrower basis for the decision. He relied on McMillan v. Pennsylvania, which upheld mandatory minimum sentencing schemes, noting that Apprendi explicitly did not overrule McMillan. He contended that the EMDA's limitation on good conduct credits is substantively similar to the mandatory minimum sentence in McMillan and thus constitutional. Bustamante J. disagreed with the majority's reliance on People v. Garry and preferred the reasoning in State v. Johnson for recognizing the practical effects of sentencing laws (paras 21-27).