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 one count of attempted first-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP) and two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM). The offenses involved a 14-year-old victim who was developmentally delayed and hearing impaired. The Defendant forced intercourse, impregnated the victim, and engaged in other sexual acts, including touching her intimate parts and covering her mouth to prevent her from screaming (paras 1, 3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Santa Fe County: The Defendant was sentenced to 12 years in prison, with the crimes designated as serious violent offenses under the Earned Meritorious Deductions Act (EMDA), requiring the Defendant to serve 85% of the sentence (paras 1, 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in designating the attempted CSP conviction as a serious violent offense because it is not enumerated under Section 33-2-34(L)(4)(n) of the EMDA. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the court failed to make the required findings to support the designation of the CSCM convictions as serious violent offenses (paras 1, 7).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Conceded that the attempted CSP conviction could not be classified as a serious violent offense under the EMDA but maintained that the CSCM convictions were properly designated as serious violent offenses (para 9).
Legal Issues
- Whether the attempted first-degree CSP conviction can be designated as a serious violent offense under the EMDA.
- Whether the district court made sufficient findings to support the designation of the CSCM convictions as serious violent offenses under the EMDA.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's designation of the attempted CSP conviction as a serious violent offense.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the designation of the CSCM convictions as serious violent offenses for further consideration and findings in accordance with the required legal standard (paras 2, 22).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Fry and Vigil JJ. concurring):
Attempted CSP Conviction: The Court held that attempted first-degree CSP is not one of the offenses enumerated in Section 33-2-34(L)(4)(n) of the EMDA. As such, it cannot be designated as a serious violent offense, and the Defendant's eligibility for earned credit diminution cannot be reduced for this conviction. The State conceded this point (paras 9, 22).
CSCM Convictions: The Court found that the district court failed to make the necessary findings under the standard established in State v. Morales, 2002-NMCA-016. Specifically, the district court did not adequately determine whether the offenses were committed in a physically violent manner with intent to cause serious harm or recklessness in the face of knowledge that the acts were likely to result in serious harm. The Court emphasized that the designation of a crime as a serious violent offense requires a reasoned measurement process and specific findings to ensure meaningful appellate review (paras 10-21).
Remand for CSCM Convictions: The Court remanded the case to the district court to reconsider the designation of the CSCM convictions as serious violent offenses and to make findings consistent with the Morales standard, including addressing the nature of the offense, the resulting harm, and the Defendant's intent or recklessness (paras 21-22).