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, Jorge Reyes, was convicted of Child Solicitation by Electronic Device (CES) under NMSA 1978, Section 30-37-3.2(C)(1) (2007). The legal contention arose over whether the Defendant was subject to the general period of parole or the extended parole period under the sex offender parole statute (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, April 28, 2021: Granted Defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, concluding the Defendant was subject to the general period of parole rather than the extended parole period under the sex offender parole statute.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued for the application of the extended parole period under the sex offender parole statute for the Defendant convicted of CES.
• Defendant-Appellee (Jorge Reyes): Contended that he was subject to the general period of parole, not the extended parole period under the sex offender parole statute.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant, convicted of Child Solicitation by Electronic Device, is subject to the general period of parole or the extended parole period under the sex offender parole statute.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and remanded the matter for further proceedings, including the amendment of the Defendant’s parole sentence in accordance with State v. Sena (paras 7-8).

Reasons

• Per Thomson, J., concurred by C. Shannon Bacon, C.J., Michael E. Vigil, J., and Briana H. Zamora, J.: The Supreme Court of New Mexico decided to reverse the district court's decision based on the precedent set in State v. Sena, which held that defendants convicted of CES are subject to an indeterminate parole sentence of five to twenty years under the sex offender parole statute. The Court exercised its discretion to dispose of the case by nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion, indicating that the legal issue presented was directly addressed in the Sena decision. The Court vacated its previous order holding the appeal in abeyance following the Sena disposition, leading to the reversal of the district court's decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with the Sena ruling (paras 2-8).