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 August 2005, the Defendant was charged with sixty counts of sexual exploitation of children after police seized three binders from his truck and images from his laptop, all containing pornographic photographs of children. The Defendant entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to six counts of possession of child pornography, conditioned on his ability to appeal the unit of prosecution issue.

Procedural History

• State v. Olsson, 2008-NMCA-009, ¶ 1, 143 N.M. 351, 176 P.3d 340: The Court of Appeals held the statutory language of Section 30-6A-3(A) ambiguous regarding the unit of prosecution for possession of child pornography and remanded for further proceedings to determine if the Defendant’s acts were sufficiently distinct to support multiple counts.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the statutory language indicated the Legislature intended to create only a single count of possession of child pornography regardless of the number of images or items possessed. Contended that the six counts of possession violated constitutional protections against double jeopardy and that the parole requirements imposed created an illegal sentence.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued for the affirmation of the Defendant's convictions and contended that the parole requirements imposed by the trial court were proper. The State conceded that the sentence requiring more than one year of parole following the completion of the prison term was improper and should be modified.

Legal Issues

• Whether the six counts of possession of child pornography violate the Defendant’s constitutional protections against double jeopardy.
• Whether the parole requirements imposed by the trial court create an illegal sentence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions but reversed and remanded for the limited purpose of correcting the parole requirements imposed by the trial court.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Michael E. Vigil concurring, held that the statutory language of Section 30-6A-3(A) is ambiguous regarding the unit of prosecution for possession of child pornography. The Court determined that it lacked sufficient information to apply the Herron factors to decide if the Defendant’s acts were sufficiently distinct to justify multiple punishments under the statute. The Defendant's waiver of the application of the Herron factors to the three binders and the lack of additional factual development on remand meant the Court could not reach the rule of lenity to decide if the six counts should merge. The Court also found that the parole requirements, as imposed, were improper because they required more than one year of parole following the completion of the prison term, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 31-21-10(C) (2005). The State conceded this point, and the Court remanded for correction of the parole requirements.