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 pled guilty to three counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the third degree and one count of attempted criminal sexual contact of a minor. The charges stemmed from incidents where the Defendant, while wrestling with two boys under the age of thirteen, engaged in inappropriate touching. The plea agreement included a provision requiring the Defendant to register as a sex offender under New Mexico's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), but the Defendant later claimed he was not adequately informed of this requirement (paras 2-3, 6).
Procedural History
- District Court, March 2002: The trial court denied the Defendant's motion to set aside his guilty plea, concluding that the plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (para 9).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily because he was not informed of the sex offender registration requirements under SORNA. He also claimed he was rushed into the plea, was misled by his attorney about receiving probation, and had a meritorious defense (paras 1, 5-6, 27).
- State-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant was adequately informed of the consequences of his plea, including the registration requirement, as it was explicitly stated in the plea agreement. The State argued that the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily (paras 6, 9).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant's guilty plea entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently despite the alleged lack of advice regarding the sex offender registration requirements under SORNA?
- Are the sex offender registration requirements under SORNA a direct or collateral consequence of a guilty plea?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the Defendant's guilty plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and that the sex offender registration requirements under SORNA are collateral consequences of the plea (paras 25, 33).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Bustamante and Castillo JJ. concurring):
- The Court held that a guilty plea must be entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, with the Defendant understanding the direct consequences of the plea. However, the Court determined that the sex offender registration requirements under SORNA are collateral, not direct, consequences because they are remedial and regulatory rather than punitive (paras 13-14, 24-25).
- The Court reviewed the plea proceeding and found that the Defendant was informed of the charges, penalties, and his constitutional rights, and that he expressly waived those rights. The plea agreement explicitly mentioned the registration requirement, and the Defendant did not raise concerns about the plea during the hearing (paras 3-4, 6).
- The Court rejected the Defendant's claims of being rushed into the plea and misled by his attorney, noting that the evidence showed the Defendant had sufficient time to review the agreement and that his attorney had discussed the plea terms with him. The Court also found no evidence of promises regarding probation or lack of prison time (paras 6-7, 27-30).
- The Court emphasized that while the consequences of SORNA are significant, they are not imposed by the court and do not affect the range of punishment. Therefore, the trial court was not required to advise the Defendant of these consequences as a matter of due process (paras 20-25).
- The Court concluded that the Defendant's plea was not constitutionally defective and affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to set aside the plea (paras 25, 33).