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

• The Defendant pled guilty to solicitation of a child by electronic communication device. As part of his sentence, he was ordered to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The Defendant appealed the order to register as a sex offender, challenging the applicability of a 2007 amendment to SORNA that included his crime among those requiring registration (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Curry County, Teddy L. Hartley, District Judge.
• Certiorari Granted, March 21, 2014, No. 34,558. Certiorari Quashed, November 21, 2014, No. 34,558. Released for Publication April 8, 2014.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the 2007 amendment making the crime of child solicitation by electronic communication device subject to SORNA registration was not effective due to subsequent amendments to the same section of SORNA.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the 2007 amendment was effective and required the Defendant to register as a sex offender under SORNA.

Legal Issues

• Whether the 2007 amendment to SORNA, making the crime of child solicitation by electronic communication device subject to sex offender registration, was effective despite later amendments to the same section of SORNA.

Disposition

• The court reversed the district court’s ruling that the Defendant must register as a sex offender.

Reasons

• Per BUSTAMANTE, J. (CYNTHIA A. FRY, J., M. MONICA ZAMORA, J., concurring):
  The court's decision was based on an analysis of the legislative history and language of the 2007 amendments to SORNA, the statutes guiding the Compilation Commission, and the precedent set by State v. Smith. The court found that the 2007 amendment relied upon by the State was not effective because it was not the last act signed by the governor in relation to amendments to the same section of SORNA during the same legislative session. Furthermore, the court considered the 2013 amendment, which explicitly added child solicitation by electronic communication device to the list of SORNA-covered crimes and was intended to reconcile multiple amendments to the same sections of law from 2007. The court concluded that the Legislature viewed the 2007 amendments as irreconcilable and that the 2013 amendment was necessary to make child solicitation by electronic communication device a SORNA-covered crime. Since the 2013 amendment specified that it applied only to convictions occurring on or after July 1, 2013, it did not apply to the Defendant. Therefore, the court reversed the order requiring the Defendant to register as a sex offender (paras 2-14).