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 charged with six counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of child abuse and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The district court imposed probation with a condition requiring the Defendant to submit information for sex offender registration under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), despite the Defendant not being convicted of a sex offense requiring registration (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The Defendant was sentenced to probation with a condition requiring compliance with SORNA registration requirements, even though the Defendant was not convicted of a sex offense requiring such registration (paras 1-2).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court lacked the authority to impose a probation condition requiring compliance with SORNA registration requirements, as the Defendant was not convicted of a sex offense under SORNA (paras 1, 9-10).
- Appellee (State): Contended that the probation condition was valid as it served the purposes of community protection and Defendant's rehabilitation (paras 7, 13).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court have the authority to impose a probation condition requiring the Defendant to comply with SORNA registration requirements, despite the Defendant not being convicted of a sex offense under SORNA?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the probation condition requiring compliance with SORNA registration requirements and affirmed the remainder of the district court's judgment and sentence (para 14).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Sutin and Castillo JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the district court lacked the authority to impose the SORNA-related probation condition because the Defendant was not convicted of a sex offense under SORNA. The statutory framework of SORNA does not permit registration or processing of individuals who are not convicted of qualifying sex offenses. The district court's condition improperly delegated discretion to the sheriff to process the Defendant as a sex offender, which is not authorized under SORNA (paras 9-11).
The Court acknowledged the district court's intent to protect the community and rehabilitate the Defendant but emphasized that such goals must align with statutory authority. SORNA is a remedial statute designed for public safety, not punishment, and its application is limited to individuals convicted of qualifying offenses. The district court's imposition of the condition effectively substituted its judgment for that of the legislature, which is impermissible (paras 12-13).