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

• On November 29, 2011, the Defendant pled guilty to four counts of child solicitation by electronic communication device. Following his plea, the district court mandated that the Defendant register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the 2007 amendment to SORNA, making child solicitation by electronic communication device subject to sex offender registration, was effective.
• Appellant (Defendant): Contested the requirement to register as a sex offender, challenging the effectiveness of the 2007 SORNA amendment due to subsequent amendments to the same section.

Legal Issues

• Whether the 2007 amendment making the crime of child solicitation by electronic communication device subject to SORNA was effective, considering the Legislature's later amendments to the same section of SORNA.

Disposition

• The Court held that the Defendant’s conviction for child solicitation by electronic communication device was not a SORNA-covered crime at the time of his guilty plea and reversed the district court’s order requiring the Defendant to register as a sex offender (para 4).

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Michael D. Bustamante, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring): The Court's decision was influenced by its recent ruling in State v. Ho, which addressed a similar issue. The Court analyzed the history and language of the 2007 amendments, the statutes guiding the Compilation Commission, and State v. Smith to determine the Legislature's intent. The Court concluded that the 2007 amendment did not take effect until on or after July 1, 2013, based on the Legislature's intent as expressed in the 2013 amendment to Section 29-11A-3(I)(11). This interpretation led to the conclusion that SORNA did not apply to the Defendant's conviction for child solicitation by electronic communication device at the time of his guilty plea (paras 2-3).