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, convicted in 1993 of three counts of criminal sexual contact, was required to register as a sex offender under New Mexico’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) after its enactment in 1995. He registered in 2003 and 2004 but failed to renew his registration in 2005. The Defendant argued that he was never formally notified of his annual registration obligation (paras 1, 3-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, Curry County: The Defendant was convicted of failing to renew his sex offender registration and received an 18-month suspended sentence (paras 6, 22).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence that he was notified of his duty to register annually, and that the lack of notice violated his due process rights (paras 2, 7).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant’s prior registrations in 2003 and 2004 demonstrated his knowledge of the annual registration requirement, and that this knowledge satisfied the statutory notice requirement (paras 16, 18).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant willfully failed to renew his sex offender registration?
- Did the State’s failure to provide formal notice of the registration requirement violate the Defendant’s due process rights?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant’s conviction, finding insufficient evidence to prove that he willfully failed to renew his registration (para 22).
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Bustamante and Vigil JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant willfully failed to renew his registration. The judgment and sentence from 1993 did not include notice of the registration requirement, as SORNA was enacted after his conviction. The State’s evidence, including the Defendant’s prior registrations in 2003 and 2004, did not establish that he was adequately informed of his ongoing duty to register annually. The registration forms lacked explicit notice, and no testimony confirmed that the Defendant was informed of this obligation during the registration process or subsequent interactions with law enforcement (paras 15-18).
The Court emphasized that willfulness requires proof of intentional noncompliance, which was not demonstrated in this case. The absence of formal notice or evidence of the Defendant’s knowledge of the annual registration requirement precluded a finding of willful failure to comply. The Court declined to address the due process argument, as the conviction was reversed on evidentiary grounds (paras 13, 19-21).