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 a youthful offender and pleaded guilty to several crimes. The district court determined that the Child was not amenable to treatment or rehabilitation in available facilities and sentenced him as an adult to fifteen years of incarceration.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Child-Appellant: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by concluding he should receive an adult sentence rather than juvenile sanctions. Contended that the court failed to make findings regarding certain statutory factors for amenability and that the findings made were not supported by substantial evidence.
• State (Plaintiff-Appellee): Defended the district court's amenability determination on the merits and argued that the Child waived the right to challenge that determination on appeal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in determining that the Child-Appellant was not amenable to treatment or rehabilitation and should be sentenced as an adult.
• Whether the district court made adequate findings regarding the statutory factors for determining amenability to treatment or rehabilitation.
• Whether the district court's findings regarding the statutory factors for amenability were supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

• The appeal is affirmed, maintaining the district court's decision to sentence the Child-Appellant as an adult.

Reasons

• Per Ives, J., concurred by Henderson, J., and Yohalem, J.:
  The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, assuming without deciding that there was no waiver by the Child-Appellant to challenge the amenability determination on appeal. The court found that the district court did make findings regarding all eight statutory factors for determining amenability to treatment or rehabilitation, contrary to the Child-Appellant's contention (paras 2-3). It concluded that the district court's findings were supported by substantial evidence, specifically citing parts of Dr. Alexander Paret's amenability report that the district court relied upon (para 4). The appellate court also rejected the Child-Appellant's argument that the district court failed to adequately explain its reasons for determining non-amenability, noting that the court adopted Dr. Paret's conclusions regarding each statutory factor and found all factors weighed against a finding of amenability (para 5). The appellate court expressed concern over New Mexico's approach to amenability determinations and the sentencing of youthful offenders, suggesting legislative reconsideration might be beneficial (para 7).