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 2007, two bills addressing the monitoring and parole of convicted sex offenders were passed and signed into law on the same day. The defendant, Anthony Sena, pleaded no contest to the offense of child solicitation by electronic communication device and was sentenced to three years in the Department of Corrections with an imposed five- to twenty-year indeterminate period of sex offender parole. The defendant seeks application of the preexisting standard parole term to his sentence, not the extended parole term enacted in the 2007 legislation (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Court of Appeals: Reversed the district court's imposition of the extended parole term and ordered the imposition of the standard parole term (para 13).
• District Court: Imposed a five- to twenty-year indeterminate period of sex offender parole on the defendant (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Petitioner (State of New Mexico): Argued that the two 2007 bills are reconcilable and that the extended parole term applies to those convicted of child solicitation by electronic communication device (N/A).
• Defendant-Respondent (Anthony C. Sena): Sought application of the preexisting standard parole term to his sentence, arguing that the two 2007 laws are irreconcilable (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the two 2007 bills addressing the monitoring and parole of convicted sex offenders are reconcilable.
• Whether the extended parole term enacted in the 2007 legislation applies to those convicted of child solicitation by electronic communication device (paras 2, 4).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed the district court's imposition of the extended parole term on the defendant's crime (para 19).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, per Justice Thomson, held that the two 2007 bills are reconcilable and that the extended parole term applies to those convicted of child solicitation by electronic communication device. The Court emphasized its role in reading statutes harmoniously if possible and applied the test from State v. Smith to discern legislative intent. The Court found that each bill served distinct purposes in strengthening the sex offender parole statute and that the SB 735 and SB 528 enactments must be read harmoniously. The Court cautioned against the continued application of the Court of Appeals' decision in Ho to determine the bills' reconcilability, noting that the 2013 SORNA Amendment and Ho play no role in the analysis of the parole requirements provided in the SB 735 enactment. The Court concluded that the legislative intent behind the 2007 amendments to the sex offender parole statute was to apply the extended parole term to those convicted of child solicitation by electronic communication device (paras 15-27).