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, at the age of fifteen, was convicted in Colorado for third-degree sexual assault, a misdemeanor, and first-degree assault, a felony. After moving to New Mexico, he was charged with failing to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), which he contested, arguing that his Colorado conviction was not equivalent to a SORNA offense due to the nature of the conviction and his juvenile status at the time of the offense (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Taos County: Denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, ruling that his Colorado conviction, if obtained in New Mexico, would consist of criminal sexual contact of a minor and would be a registerable offense (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that his Colorado conviction for third-degree sexual assault does not correspond to a registrable offense under New Mexico's SORNA, emphasizing the dissimilarity in elements between the Colorado offense and SORNA offenses. He also contended that the State failed to present evidence establishing that his conduct, as found by the Colorado jury, met the elements of any registrable offense in New Mexico (paras 8, 20).
• State: Contended that the Defendant's conduct during the Colorado conviction is equivalent to the registrable New Mexico offense of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) or criminal sexual penetration (CSP), relying on an unfiled, unsigned presentence report to assert the factual basis of the Defendant's conduct (paras 4, 20).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's Colorado conviction for third-degree sexual assault is "equivalent" to a registrable SORNA offense in New Mexico (para 10).
• Whether the district court erred in considering an unsigned, unfiled presentence report to determine the factual basis for finding the Defendant's actual conduct (para 19).

Disposition

• The judgment and sentence entered upon the Defendant's conditional guilty plea to one count of failure to register as a sex offender was reversed, and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion (para 27).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Michael E. Vigil, with Judges Julie J. Vargas and Stephen G. French concurring, found that the district court erred in its determination that the Defendant's Colorado conviction, if it had occurred in New Mexico, constituted a SORNA offense. The Court concluded that the elements of the Colorado offense did not correspond to any registrable sex offense in New Mexico and that the State failed to present admissible evidence establishing that the Defendant's actual conduct met the elements of any registrable offense in New Mexico. Specifically, the Court found that the presentence report used by the State was inadmissible for lacking proof of authenticity and reliability, and therefore, the district court erred in considering it to determine the Defendant's actual conduct (paras 15-26).