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-Appellee, Derrick Romero, pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP). Initially, the district court ordered a two-year parole period, which was later corrected to a five-to-twenty-year parole period due to the original being unlawfully short. This correction was also incorrect as the law requires a sex offender convicted of CSP in the second degree to serve an indeterminate period of supervised parole of not less than five years and up to the natural life of the offender.

Procedural History

• District Court, June 22, 2020: Granted Appellee’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, vacated the second amended judgment and sentence (J&S), and reinstated the original two-year parole period.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the court should remand for imposition of the statutory five-years-to-life parole period, reverse the district court under a holding that a separate statutory basis existed for the second amended J&S, or overrule a previous case to hold that district courts retain their common law authority to correct illegal sentences.
• Defendant-Appellee (Romero): Challenged the revised parole period and argued that the district court had no jurisdiction to correct the illegal parole sentence in the first J&S.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence after the issuance of the first judgment and sentence.
• Whether the Defendant-Appellee is entitled to an opportunity for plea withdrawal due to changes in his parole sentence.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico reversed the district court’s grant of the writ of habeas corpus and remanded to the district court to impose the statutorily required parole sentence. It also directed the Rules of Criminal Procedure for State Courts Committee to clarify the length of time in which a district court retains the relevant jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence.

Reasons

• The Supreme Court found that historical changes leading to Rule 5-801 did not remove a district court’s common law jurisdictional authority to correct an illegal sentence, thereby overruling the previous case that held otherwise. The Court determined that the district court had jurisdiction to correct the clearly illegal parole sentence of two years but noted that the corrected sentence of five-to-twenty years was also illegal. The Court concluded that an illegal sentence is void and a nullity, and remanded for imposition of the parole period required by law. Additionally, the Court held that the Defendant-Appellee is entitled to an opportunity for plea withdrawal due to the changes in his parole sentence, as the plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily with an understanding of the parole period consequences (paras 1-53).