AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• A seventeen-year-old, referred to as Child, was involved in a fatal shooting at a convenience store in Lovington, New Mexico. After being picked up with an accomplice, Child, armed with a knife, entered the store alongside his accomplice who carried a shotgun. The accomplice shot and killed the store clerk during an attempted robbery. Child pled guilty to second-degree murder, with other charges being dismissed, and was adjudicated as a youthful offender. The court ordered a diagnostic commitment to assess Child's amenability to treatment in the juvenile system.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Lea County, Don Maddox, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Child-Appellant: Argued that the district court improperly relied on facts not in the record and a predisposition report not prepared according to statutory requirements, claimed the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of non-amenability, and contended that the district court erred in imposing a contempt sentence to run consecutively to his sentence for second-degree murder.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Asserted that Child did not properly preserve the issue for appellate review regarding the district court's reliance on facts not in the record and argued that the predisposition report complied with statutory requirements.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by relying on facts not in the record to find Child non-amenable to treatment.
• Whether the predisposition report complied with statutory requirements.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to find Child non-amenable to rehabilitation.
• Whether the district court erred in imposing an adult sentence for contempt.

Disposition

• The court held that objections to the district court’s reliance on facts not in the record and to the sentence for contempt were not properly preserved.
• The court reversed Child’s sentence and remanded for a new amenability hearing, finding the predisposition report did not comply with statutory requirements.

Reasons

• Judges Jonathan B. Sutin, Cynthia A. Fry, and Michael E. Vigil concurred in the opinion. The court found that Child's objections regarding the district court's reliance on facts not in the record and the sentence for contempt were not properly preserved for appellate review. However, it was determined that the predisposition report did not meet statutory requirements as it failed to provide necessary information for evaluating Child's amenability to treatment. Specifically, the report lacked information on the prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of Child using available services and facilities. The court emphasized the importance of obtaining a comprehensive predisposition report that addresses all statutory factors to make an informed decision on amenability. Consequently, the court reversed the sentence and remanded for a new amenability hearing with instructions to obtain and consider a predisposition report that complies with statutory requirements and the newly adopted form for evaluating amenability to treatment.