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, Isaiah Atencio, was convicted of Child Solicitation by Electronic Device (CES) under NMSA 1978, Section 30-37-3.2 (C)(1) (2007). The legal dispute centered on 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. Atencio, No. A-1-CA-37132, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. March 8, 2021) (nonprecedential): The Court of Appeals reversed the district court, holding that the Defendant was subject to the general period of parole rather than the extended parole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.
• State v. Sena, S-1-SC-38713: The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that defendants convicted of CES are subject to an indeterminate parole sentence of five to twenty years under the sex offender parole statute.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Petitioner (State of New Mexico): Argued for the application of the extended parole period under the sex offender parole statute for defendants convicted of CES.
• Defendant-Respondent (Isaiah Atencio): The specific arguments presented by the Defendant-Respondent are not detailed in the provided text.

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., and Michael E. Vigil, J.: The Supreme Court 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. Following the decision in Sena, which clarified that defendants convicted of CES are subject to an indeterminate parole sentence under the sex offender parole statute, the Court concluded that the legal issue presented in this case was directly addressed by Sena. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion to dispose of the case by nonprecedential order, reversing the Court of Appeals and remanding the matter for further proceedings consistent with the Sena decision (paras 1-8).