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

• In 1998, the Defendant, then eighteen years old, was indicted on multiple felony counts involving criminal sexual penetration and contact with a minor aged between twelve and thirteen. The Defendant entered a guilty plea to two counts each of criminal sexual contact and penetration of a minor. Following a plea agreement, remaining charges were dismissed. The district court issued a conditional discharge, placing the Defendant on five years of supervised probation, which was later terminated early, and the case was dismissed with prejudice (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Denise Barela Shepherd, District Judge: Denied Defendant's motion to seal portions of his criminal records and to correct alleged errors in his online criminal records (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erroneously treated his motion to seal records as a request for expungement, erred in finding he failed to meet the requirements for sealing under Rule 5-123(G), and incorrectly determined that his records in the court’s online case lookup system were accurate (paras 4-6).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued at the hearing that Defendant's motion essentially amounted to a request to expunge his criminal records, which influenced the district court's decision (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erroneously treated the Defendant's motion to seal records as a request for expungement.
• Whether the district court erred in finding that the Defendant failed to meet the requirements for sealing set forth in Rule 5-123(G).
• Whether the district court incorrectly determined that the Defendant’s records in the court’s online case lookup system were accurate.

Disposition

• Affirmed the district court's order denying the Defendant's request to seal portions of his court records.
• Reversed and remanded for the district court to issue corrections in the online case lookup system as to the final disposition in the Defendant's case (para 15).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (JAMES J. WECHSLER, J., CYNTHIA A. FRY, J., concurring):
  The court found that the district court did not need to address expungement in its order as it addressed the substance of the Defendant's motion—his request to seal portions of his criminal records. The appellate court decided not to address the Defendant's arguments on expungement, affirming the district court's decision for any reason, as long as it is not unfair to the appellant (paras 5-6).
  The court concluded that the district court's determination under Rule 5-123(G)(1) was discretionary and found no abuse of discretion in its decision to deny the Defendant's motion to seal. The court disagreed with the Defendant's argument that the purpose of the conditional discharge statute constitutes an overriding interest that overcomes the public’s right to access court records (paras 7-11).
  The court acknowledged errors in the Defendant's online records regarding the final disposition of his case and reversed the district court on this issue, remanding for corrections to be made in the online case lookup system (paras 13-14).