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

• Carol Sloan, a Commissioner of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC), was convicted of aggravated battery and aggravated burglary, both felony offenses. Following her conviction and sentencing, the Attorney General filed a petition for a writ of quo warranto to remove Ms. Sloan from office due to her felony convictions.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner (Attorney General): Argued that Ms. Sloan should be removed from office because her felony convictions disqualified her from holding elective public office under the New Mexico Constitution and statutory law.
• Respondent (Carol K. Sloan): Contended that her felony convictions did not disqualify her from continuing to hold the office of PRC Commissioner to which she was lawfully elected and that only the Legislature could remove her from office through the impeachment process.

Legal Issues

• Whether felony convictions disqualify an elected official from continuing to hold their office.
• Whether the Legislature's impeachment process is the exclusive means for removing an elected official convicted of a felony from office.
• When the forfeiture of Ms. Sloan's office as a Public Regulation Commissioner became effective.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court issued a writ of quo warranto removing Ms. Sloan from office due to her felony convictions, effective upon the entry of her judgment of conviction.

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, per curiam, held that:
  Eligibility to Hold Office: Eligibility to hold elective public office is of a continuing nature and must exist at the commencement of the term and during the occupancy of the office. Ms. Sloan's felony convictions rendered her no longer a qualified elector under the New Mexico Constitution, thereby disqualifying her from continuing to hold public office (paras 5-7).
  Quo Warranto vs. Impeachment: The Court rejected Ms. Sloan's argument that impeachment is the exclusive means for removing a felon from public office. The Court clarified that the constitutionally sanctioned power of quo warranto is an appropriate and co-existing method for removing someone who has forfeited the right to hold office upon conviction for a felony offense (paras 8-12).
  Effective Date of Forfeiture: The Court concluded that the forfeiture of Ms. Sloan's office became effective upon the entry of the district court’s judgment of conviction, not the date the Court issued its writ of quo warranto. This decision was based on the automatic cessation of Ms. Sloan's status as a qualified elector upon her felony conviction, which under the Constitution, demanded her removal from office (paras 13-15).