Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kusper v. Pontikesgreen2 sentences2017See Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 52-53, 58, 60-61 (1973) (holding that the State’s legitimate interest in preventing political party raiding was not sufficient to justify the substantial restraint of a statute prohibiting voters from voting in a party primary if they had voted in another party’s primary within the preceding twenty-three months); see also § 1-4-8(A)(2) (requiring county clerks to reopen registration the Monday following an election). 2017See Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 52-53 , 13 58, 60-61 (1973) (holding that the State’s legitimate interest in preventing political 14 party raiding was not sufficient to justify the substantial restraint of a statute 15 prohibiting voters from voting in a party primary if they had voted in another party’s 16 primary within the preceding twenty-three months); see also § 1-4-8(A)(2) (requiring 17 county clerks to reopen registration the Monday following an election). | 2 | 2 |
Rosario v. Rockefellergreen2 sentences2017Therefore, the Court concluded 8 that the registration requirement did not violate the petitioners’ constitutional rights. 9 See id. at 762 . 10 {15} The Rosario petitioners sought to affirmatively associate with a political party, 11 id. at 755-756 , unlike the DTS voters in this case. 2017Therefore, the Court concluded 8 that the registration requirement did not violate the petitioners’ constitutional rights. 9 See id. at 762 . 10 {15} The Rosario petitioners sought to affirmatively associate with a political party, 11 id. at 755-756 , unlike the DTS voters in this case. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Senagreen1 sentence2023Treating the analysis of the registration requirement as analogous to the parole requirement, the Court of Appeals summarily concluded that there “is no principled reason why the Legislature would view SB 735 and SB 528 as irreconcilable for the purpose of SORNA [in 2013, as held by Ho, 2014-NMCA-038, ¶ 13 ] but reconcilable for the purpose of sex offender parole.” Sena, 2021-NMCA-047, ¶¶ 23-24 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gossgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Goss, 1991-NMCA-003 , ¶¶ 20-21, 111 N.M. 530 , 807 P.2d 228 (holding that even though “the contested evidence was subject to conflicting interpretations and inferences, the trial court as the fact[-]finder was empowered to weigh the evidence” and find that voluntary consent was given). {13} We understand Defendant to further contend that the encounter itself was not consensual, given the mandatory nature of the registration requirement, and that this rendered his consent involuntary. 2020See State v. Goss, 1991-NMCA-003 , ¶¶ 20-21, 111 N.M. 530 , 807 P.2d 228 (holding that even though “the contested evidence was subject to conflicting interpretations and inferences, the trial court as the fact[-]finder was empowered to weigh the evidence” and find that voluntary consent was given). {13} We understand Defendant to further contend that the encounter itself was not consensual, given the mandatory nature of the registration requirement, and that this rendered his consent involuntary. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Billingtongreen2 sentences2013See ACLU of N.M. v. 17 City of Albuquerque, 2006-NMCA-078, ¶ 49 , 139 N.M. 761 , 137 P.3d 1215 ; see, e.g., 18 State v. Billington, 2009-NMCA-014, ¶¶ 3, 10-11 , 145 N.M. 526 , 201 P.3d 857 19 (illustrating the applicability of pre-2005 SORNA registration and penalty provisions 3 1 to a similarly situated individual). 2013See ACLU of N.M. v. 17 City of Albuquerque, 2006-NMCA-078, ¶ 49 , 139 N.M. 761 , 137 P.3d 1215 ; see, e.g., 18 State v. Billington, 2009-NMCA-014, ¶¶ 3, 10-11 , 145 N.M. 526 , 201 P.3d 857 19 (illustrating the applicability of pre-2005 SORNA registration and penalty provisions 3 1 to a similarly situated individual). | 1 | 1 |
ACLU OF NM v. City of Albuquerquegreen2 sentences2013See ACLU of N.M. v. 17 City of Albuquerque, 2006-NMCA-078, ¶ 49 , 139 N.M. 761 , 137 P.3d 1215 ; see, e.g., 18 State v. Billington, 2009-NMCA-014, ¶¶ 3, 10-11 , 145 N.M. 526 , 201 P.3d 857 19 (illustrating the applicability of pre-2005 SORNA registration and penalty provisions 3 1 to a similarly situated individual). 2013See ACLU of N.M. v. 17 City of Albuquerque, 2006-NMCA-078, ¶ 49 , 139 N.M. 761 , 137 P.3d 1215 ; see, e.g., 18 State v. Billington, 2009-NMCA-014, ¶¶ 3, 10-11 , 145 N.M. 526 , 201 P.3d 857 19 (illustrating the applicability of pre-2005 SORNA registration and penalty provisions 3 1 to a similarly situated individual). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Riveragreen2 sentences2009See State v. Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, ¶ 9 , 134 N.M. 768 , 82 P.3d 939 (stating that the interpretation of a statute is a matter of law which is subject to our de novo review). {31} The effect of allowing release pending appeal is to stay execution of the sentence, and a trial court is specifically granted authority to establish conditions of release pending appeal. 2009See State v. Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, ¶ 9 , 134 N.M. 768 , 82 P.3d 939 (stating that the interpretation of a statute is a matter of law which is subject to our de novo review). {31} The effect of allowing release pending appeal is to stay execution of the sentence, and a trial court is specifically granted authority to establish conditions of release pending appeal. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brothersgreen2 sentences2006See State v. Brothers, 2002-NMCA-110, ¶¶ 22, 23 , 133 N.M. 36 , 59 P.3d 1268 (noting that while the district court may not have had the authority to require a convicted sex offender to register, it had the authority to notify the defendant of the registration requirement). {10} Not only does the statutory scheme of SORNA not contemplate Defendant’s registration, it also does not contemplate any action upon the receipt of the registration information. 2006See State v. Brothers, 2002-NMCA-110, ¶¶ 22, 23 , 133 N.M. 36 , 59 P.3d 1268 (noting that while the district court may not have had the authority to require a convicted sex offender to register, it had the authority to notify the defendant of the registration requirement). {10} Not only does the statutory scheme of SORNA not contemplate Defendant’s registration, it also does not contemplate any action upon the receipt of the registration information. | 1 | 1 |
People v. McClellangreen2 sentences2002See McClellan, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 739 , 862 P.2d at 751 (Kennard, J., dissenting) (stating the remedy for failure to include the registration requirement in the plea agreement could not be specific performance, but would be withdrawal of the guilty plea because a statutorily mandatory consequence is non-negotiable). 2002See McClellan, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 739 , 862 P.2d at 751 (Kennard, J., dissenting) (stating the remedy for failure to include the registration requirement in the plea agreement could not be specific performance, but would be withdrawal of the guilty plea because a statutorily mandatory consequence is non-negotiable). | 1 | 1 |
Alvarez v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See Alvarez v. State, 63 S.W.3d 578, 581-83 (Tex.App.2001) (holding harmless error as to court's failure to inform the defendant upon a guilty plea of the registration requirement, since there was no evidence the defendant was unaware of *1275 the consequences of the plea or that he was misled or harmed by any court's statements). {30} Last, Defendant analogizes notice in a plea agreement of the requirement to register with notice in a plea agreement of immigration consequences. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hodge
green
2 sentences2016Normally, “a 13 voluntary guilty plea ordinarily constitutes a waiver of the defendant’s right to appeal 14 his conviction on other than jurisdictional grounds.” State v. Hodge, 1994-NMSC- 15 087, ¶ 14, 118 N.M. 410 , 882 P.2d 1 . 2016Normally, “a 13 voluntary guilty plea ordinarily constitutes a waiver of the defendant’s right to appeal 14 his conviction on other than jurisdictional grounds.” State v. Hodge, 1994-NMSC- 15 087, ¶ 14, 118 N.M. 410 , 882 P.2d 1 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Ho
green
1 sentence2023Treating the analysis of the registration requirement as analogous to the parole requirement, the Court of Appeals summarily concluded that there “is no principled reason why the Legislature would view SB 735 and SB 528 as irreconcilable for the purpose of SORNA [in 2013, as held by Ho, 2014-NMCA-038, ¶ 13 ] but reconcilable for the purpose of sex offender parole.” Sena, 2021-NMCA-047, ¶¶ 23-24 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Edwards
green
1 sentence2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Druktenis
green
2 sentences2013Because we 5 remain unpersuaded that the district court erred, we affirm. 6 {2} Defendant challenges the validity of his conviction for failing to register as a 7 sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act 8 (SORNA). 9 {3} First and foremost, Defendant contends that because his conviction predates the 10 enactment of SORNA, applying the registration requirement to him violates the Ex 11 Post Facto Clause of the New Mexico Constitution. [MIO 1, 10-33] Defendant 12 specifically urges this Court to depart from the federal analysis and to apply the New 13 Mexico pr 2013Because we 5 remain unpersuaded that the district court erred, we affirm. 6 {2} Defendant challenges the validity of his conviction for failing to register as a 7 sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act 8 (SORNA). 9 {3} First and foremost, Defendant contends that because his conviction predates the 10 enactment of SORNA, applying the registration requirement to him violates the Ex 11 Post Facto Clause of the New Mexico Constitution. [MIO 1, 10-33] Defendant 12 specifically urges this Court to depart from the federal analysis and to apply the New 13 Mexico pr | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Myers
green
1 sentence2011Id. ¶ 31 (citing Rule 12-205(B) NMRA). “[Bjecause SORNA does not explicitly deprive a trial court of its discretion to stay the registration requirement pending appeal, and [New Mexico] rules and statutes otherwise vest such discretion in the trial court,” id. ¶ 29, Myers III held that the district judge retains discretion to grant a stay, id. ¶¶ 31-33 (citing NMSA 1978, § 31-ll-l(C) (1988) and quoting Rule 5-402(C) NMRA). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Lambert v. California
green
1 sentence2008For such a narrow argument, we are compelled under the facts of this case to construct a very narrow rule as we agree with his position. {21} Though noting that Lambert, 355 U.S. at 229-30 , and subsequent cases concerning registration requirements akin to ours treat a failure of notice as a due process violation, we do not address Defendant’s argument that he was not afforded due process through notification of the registration requirement because we reverse, holding that the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant willfully failed to renew | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Memorial Medical Center, Inc. v. Tatsch Construction, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002Id. {33} The district court determined that "[t]here is no record that the State ever promised [Defendant] was exempt from the registration requirement." Implicit in this finding is that the State did not misrepresent or conceal facts in order to secure a plea agreement. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Jonathan M.
green
1 sentence1993The Act’s registration requirement applies only to mortgage loan companies or loan brokers who “transact business in the state of New Mexico, either directly or indirectly.” Id. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.