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 entered a conditional guilty plea to child solicitation by an electronic communication device for an incident involving a child aged 13-16. Following a violation of his probation conditions, which included failing to appear for a drug test and testing positive for cocaine, the Defendant's conditional discharge was revoked. He was sentenced to two years in the New Mexico Department of Corrections, followed by one year of supervised probation and an indefinite period of parole.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court improperly delegated its authority to impose terms of probation to Adult Probation and Parole, violating statutory and constitutional provisions. Contended that the lack of a hearing to determine probation terms violated procedural due process rights. Also argued that the indefinite sentence of parole was improper.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Conceded that the indefinite parole term was improper and should be corrected. Contended that the district court did not improperly delegate its authority and that the supervision by probation authorities was a reasonable condition of probation.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court improperly delegated its authority to impose terms of probation to Adult Probation and Parole.
• Whether the Defendant's right to procedural due process was violated by not conducting a hearing to determine the terms of his probation.
• Whether the indefinite sentence of parole was improper.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant's probation sentence.
• The Court vacated the Defendant's parole sentence.
• The case was remanded to the district court to amend the Defendant's parole sentence.

Reasons

• BOGARDUS, Judge: Found that the district court did not improperly delegate its authority to Adult Probation and Parole, as it specified the conditions of probation and allowed for supervision by probation officials, which is permitted under statute and case law. Concluded that the multiple hearings held satisfied the statutory requirements for determining and reviewing probation terms, thus no due process violation occurred. Agreed with the State that the indefinite parole term was improper and determined that, based on precedent, the Defendant's parole sentence should be based on the general parole statute, requiring a one-year period of parole for a fourth-degree felony.
  J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge: Concurred with the majority opinion.
  JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part): Dissented from the majority's holding regarding the period of parole, citing disagreement with the precedent applied by the majority (paras 1-22).