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 entered into a pre-prosecution diversion agreement (PDA) with the State after being accused of embezzlement. The PDA required the Defendant to make full restitution of $2,853.98 to the victim through monthly payments. The Defendant made partial payments totaling $650 but failed to meet the agreed payment schedule due to financial hardship. The Defendant was married with five children, had limited employment, and received food stamps. The State terminated the PDA, citing the Defendant's failure to comply with its terms (paras 1-5).
Procedural History
- District Court, Grant County: The court upheld the State's termination of the PDA and allowed the criminal prosecution to proceed, despite finding that the Defendant's failure to pay restitution was not willful but due to financial inability (paras 1, 6-7).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the termination of the PDA was improper because his failure to pay restitution was non-willful and caused by financial hardship. He contended that the State violated his due process rights by terminating the agreement under these circumstances (paras 8, 17).
- Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Asserted that the PDA was lawfully terminated due to the Defendant's failure to comply with its terms. The State argued that it had no other options to secure restitution for the victim and that termination was within its statutory authority (paras 7, 18).
Legal Issues
- Whether the State lawfully terminated the pre-prosecution diversion agreement despite the Defendant's non-willful failure to pay restitution.
- Whether the termination of the PDA violated the Defendant's due process rights (paras 8-9).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision to uphold the termination of the PDA and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the Defendant in the program (paras 21, 24).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Minzner and Alarid JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the State's termination of the PDA was improper because the Defendant's failure to pay restitution was not willful but due to financial hardship. The Court emphasized that under New Mexico law, restitution is required only "to the extent practical" and that the Defendant's inability to pay did not justify termination of the agreement (paras 17-20).
The Court relied on due process principles, analogizing the termination of a PDA to probation or parole revocation proceedings. It held that the State must consider alternatives to termination when a Defendant's non-compliance is caused by financial inability. The Court also noted that the State failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for termination under these circumstances (paras 12-14, 19-20).
The Court further ruled that the two-year period for the PDA should be tolled from the date the State notified the Defendant of the termination, ensuring that the Defendant could complete the program upon reinstatement (paras 22-23).