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, originally convicted of two counts of sexual exploitation of children, had his suspended sentence revoked due to probation violations and served two years in prison. After release, he was placed on sex offender probation for five to twenty-five years. During a probation review, the Defendant's probation officer and counselor recommended his release from supervision, but a failed polygraph test in 2024, related to undisclosed romantic or sexual encounters, raised concerns about his honesty (paras 2, 6-7).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The Defendant's suspended sentence was revoked due to probation violations, leading to two years of incarceration (para 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court misapplied the law by placing the burden on him to demonstrate that supervision should be removed and contended that there was overwhelming evidence supporting his release from supervision (paras 3, 6).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the State met its burden of proof to establish a reasonable certainty that the Defendant should remain on probation due to concerns about his honesty and potential danger to the community (paras 5-7).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court misapply the law by improperly placing the burden on the Defendant to demonstrate that supervision should be removed?
- Was there overwhelming evidence that the Defendant should be released from supervision?
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to extend the Defendant's sex offender probation by two and a half years (para 9).
Reasons
Per Duffy J. (Hanisee and Attrep JJ. concurring): The Court found that the district court correctly understood the law and placed the burden of proof on the State, as evidenced by its statements and written order. The decision to extend probation was supported by evidence of the Defendant's dishonesty, which was a significant factor in the original revocation of his suspended sentence. The Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as its decision was not "clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case" (paras 5-8).