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 Respondent, Ryan James Alan Thompson, was charged with manufacturing and possessing child pornography in August 2005 and pleaded no contest in 2007. He received a sentence of nine years, which was suspended in favor of a five- to twenty-year period of supervised probation and a similar period of indeterminate supervised parole upon completion of his prison term. Due to probation violations, Thompson was ordered to serve his basic sentence in prison, which expired in July 2013. However, he remained in prison until November 2013, serving in-house parole before being released to community parole. Thompson violated parole conditions and was returned to prison, serving additional in-house parole. He inquired about his eligibility for a duration-review hearing, which led to the current legal proceedings (paras 4-7).

Procedural History

• District Court of San Juan County: Ordered a duration-review hearing for Thompson but denied his request for release from parole (para 10).

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent: Argued that he was entitled to a duration-review hearing or release from parole, claiming that in-house parole should count towards the initial five years of supervised parole required for a duration-review hearing (para 8).
• State: Contended that Thompson was not entitled to a duration-review hearing because only parole served for five consecutive years in the community counts towards the duration-review hearing eligibility (para 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether a period of in-house parole counts toward "the initial five years of supervised parole" needed to receive a duration-review hearing under Section 31-21-10.1(B) (2004) (para 2).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico affirmed the district court's decision to order a duration-review hearing for Thompson (para 30).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, led by Justice Vigil with Justices Vargas and Zamora concurring, found that the term "initial five years of supervised parole" includes all time served during the parole sentence, whether in prison or the community. The Court reasoned that statutes and case law contemplate in-house parole and that the legislative history and the rule of lenity support including in-house parole towards the duration-review hearing eligibility. The Court declined to address Thompson's argument regarding the facial unconstitutionality of Section 31-21-10.1(B) (2004) as it was not properly before them (paras 16-29). Justice Thomson, dissenting, argued that the statutory language requiring a sex offender to successfully serve parole in the community for five years before being entitled to a parole review hearing is clear and that the majority's interpretation contradicts legislative policy (paras 32-57).