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 was charged with soliciting a child under sixteen years of age using an electronic communication device, believing he was communicating with a 15-year-old girl who was actually a police officer. The Defendant arranged a meeting with the supposed minor, leading to his arrest (para 2).

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY, Drew D. Tatum, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, September 12, 2016, No. S-1-SC-36047.
• Released for Publication November 1, 2016.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) his attorney was constitutionally ineffective for not advising him to plead no contest before July 1, 2013, to avoid registration under SORNA, and (2) enforcing SORNA’s registration requirement violates his due process rights (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Opposed the Defendant's arguments, leading to the affirmation of the conviction by the Court of Appeals.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant’s attorney was constitutionally ineffective by not advising the Defendant to plead no contest before July 1, 2013, to avoid SORNA registration requirements.
• Whether enforcing SORNA’s registration requirement on the Defendant violates his due process rights.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction, rejecting both of his arguments (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge J. MILES HANISEE with concurrence from MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, and a dissent from TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, provided the following reasons:
  Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The Court found that the Defendant's attorney's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. The Defendant was aware of the consequences of his plea, satisfying the requirements of competent representation. The Court also noted that requiring the Defendant’s attorney to be aware of a three-month-long delay in the SORNA effective date would demand a particularly high level of attentiveness and diligence not guaranteed by Strickland (paras 13-23).
  Due Process: The Court concluded that the Defendant failed to preserve his due process argument for appellate review by not raising it through a pretrial motion to the district court. As such, this issue was not addressed further by the Court (paras 28-33).
  Dissenting Opinion: Judge TIMOTHY L. GARCIA dissented, arguing that the Defendant made a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel and that the matter should be remanded back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to fully evaluate defense counsel’s effectiveness (paras 36-40).