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, John Branham, was convicted of Child Solicitation by Electronic Device (CES) under NMSA 1978, Section 30-37-3.2(A) (2007). The legal dispute centered around whether the Defendant was subject to the general period of parole or the extended parole period under the sex offender parole statute.

Procedural History

• State v. Branham, No. A-1-CA-39502, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2021) (nonprecedential): The Court of Appeals reversed the district court, holding that the Defendant was subject to the general period of parole rather than the extended parole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-Petitioner (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant should be subject to the extended parole period under the sex offender parole statute.
• Defendant-Respondent (John Branham): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

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

Disposition

• The memorandum opinion of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings, including the amendment of Defendant’s parole sentence in accordance with State v. Sena, 2023-NMSC-007.

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 granted the State’s petition for writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision, which was held in abeyance pending the disposition of State v. Sena. The Supreme Court issued an opinion in State v. Sena, holding 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 concluded that the issue of law presented in this case was addressed by its opinion in Sena and decided to dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion (paras 1-8).