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 on probation after pleading no contest to one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor. He was required to register as a sex offender and adhere to specific probation conditions, including having no contact with his wife. The Defendant violated these conditions by failing to register and having contact with his wife, leading to the revocation of his probation and the imposition of his original six-year prison sentence (paras 2, 5-7, 16).
Procedural History
- District Court, August 2023: The Defendant's probation was revoked for failing to register as a sex offender and having contact with his wife. The court reinstated probation with a zero-tolerance condition against contacting his wife (paras 6-7).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court erred in revoking his probation because he had already served the requisite jail time for technical violations under the local rule LR11-302. He also contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that he violated the no-contact condition with his wife (paras 2, 9, 18).
- Appellee: The State argued that the withdrawal of LR11-302 should be applied retroactively, and the district court had the discretion to revoke probation. They maintained that sufficient evidence existed to prove the Defendant violated the no-contact condition (paras 7, 10).
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in revoking the Defendant's probation by not applying the automatic sanctions under LR11-302.
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the finding that the Defendant violated the no-contact condition with his wife?
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation and impose the balance of his prison sentence (para 19).
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Bogardus and Yohalem JJ. concurring):
The court found that the withdrawal of LR11-302 could be applied retroactively, as it was a procedural rule similar to the six-month rule in Romero, and did not affect the Defendant's due process rights. The court held that the district court retained discretion to revoke probation and impose the original sentence. Additionally, the court found sufficient evidence to support the finding that the Defendant violated the no-contact condition with his wife, as the Defendant admitted to having contact and attempted to conceal it (paras 11-18).