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 Child-Appellant was adjudicated as a delinquent child and a youthful offender for committing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (as an accessory), assault by a prisoner causing great bodily harm (as an accessory), and aggravated assault upon a peace officer causing great bodily harm (as an accessory).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Child-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by ruling that his offenses were among those enumerated in the statute because those offenses were not listed as having been committed by an accessory. Contended that he should not have been punished as a youthful offender or, alternatively, the rule of lenity should resolve the ambiguity in his favor. Also argued that the district court erred by imposing an extended commitment and failed to conduct a hearing on his amenability to treatment.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by ruling that the offenses committed by the Child-Appellant as an accessory were among those enumerated in the statute, thereby justifying punishment as a youthful offender.
• Whether the district court erred by imposing an extended commitment in the care of CYFD until the Child-Appellant reaches the age of twenty-one.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a hearing on the Child-Appellant’s amenability to treatment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed each judgment of the district court, thereby upholding the adjudication of the Child-Appellant as a delinquent child and a youthful offender, as well as the imposition of an extended commitment.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Michael D. Bustamante, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring):
  The Court of Appeals was not persuaded by the Child-Appellant's argument regarding accessory liability, referencing State v. Perez to affirm that a child adjudicated as a youthful offender for being an accessory to one of the enumerated offenses is to be punished in the same way as a juvenile adjudicated to have committed the offense as a principal. The Court found that aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and other charges faced by the Child-Appellant were indeed among the offenses enumerated in the statute, thus justifying the district court's decision to punish him as a youthful offender.
  Regarding the extended commitment, the Court found no error in the district court's decision, noting that the Child-Appellant committed acts enumerated in the statute and that the district court had discretion within the limits of the Delinquency Act to impose such a commitment. The Court also noted that the district court had considered the Child-Appellant's psychological evaluation but decided that an extended commitment was appropriate.
  Lastly, the Court rejected the Child-Appellant's argument for an amenability-to-treatment hearing, stating that he was not entitled to such a hearing because the State did not seek to sentence him as an adult, and he was not subject to sentencing as an adult.