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 entered a conditional plea to one count of child solicitation by electronic communication device, a third-degree felony, for conduct committed in October 2015. The appeal concerns the length and conditions of parole, with the Defendant arguing against being sentenced under the sex offender parole statute, contending it was not effectively amended in 2007 to include the crime of child solicitation (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Curry County: The district court sentenced the Defendant to parole pursuant to the sex offender parole statute rather than the general parole statute.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the sex offender parole statute, as amended in 2007, did not effectively include the crime of child solicitation, and therefore, the Defendant should not be sentenced under this statute but rather under the general parole statute (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the sex offender parole statute was effectively amended in 2007 to include the crime of child solicitation.
• Whether sentencing the Defendant under the sex offender parole statute violates due process given the statute's compilation history.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order sentencing the Defendant to parole pursuant to the sex offender parole statute and remanded for resentencing consistent with the opinion (para 34).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Bogardus with Chief Judge Hanisee concurring and Judge Yohalem dissenting, based its decision on the analysis of legislative history, statutory interpretation, and principles of statutory construction. The Court found that the 2007 amendments to the sex offender parole statute and the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) were irreconcilable, rendering the amendment that included child solicitation in the sex offender parole statute ineffective. This conclusion was supported by the legislative history of two bills passed in 2007, subsequent legislative actions in 2013 to reconcile amendments to SORNA, and the absence of similar actions regarding the sex offender parole statute. The Court also referenced its decision in State v. Ho, which addressed similar issues regarding legislative amendments and their effectiveness. The majority declined to apply the rule of lenity, resolving ambiguity in favor of the Defendant, and determined that the Defendant was improperly sentenced under the sex offender parole statute (paras 2-33). Judge Yohalem's dissent argued that the majority misapplied the precedent set in State v. Ho and failed to properly consider the legislative intent and the principles established in Smith regarding the reconciliation of legislative amendments (paras 36-41).