New Mexico Statutes
N.M. Stat. § 31-20-2 (2026)
Place of imprisonment; commitments.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NM-LEGnmonesource.com
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. Persons sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one year or more shall be
imprisoned in a corrections facility designated by the corrections department, unless a
new trial is granted or a portion of the sentence is suspended so as to provide for
imprisonment for not more than eighteen months; then the imprisonment may be in
such place of incarceration, other than a corrections facility under the jurisdiction of the
corrections department, as the sentencing judge, in his discretion, may prescribe;
provided that a sentence of imprisonment for one year or more but not more than
eighteen months shall be subject to the provisions of Subsections D and E of this
section and shall not be imposed unless the requirements set forth in Subsection D of
this section are satisfied.
B. All commitments, judgments and orders of the courts of this state for the
imprisonment or release of persons in the penitentiary shall run to the corrections
department, but nothing contained in this section shall invalidate or impair the validity of
any commitment, judgment or order of any court in this state directed to the secretary of
corrections, the warden of the penitentiary of New Mexico or to the penitentiary of New
Mexico, and all such commitments, judgments and orders shall be treated and
construed as running to the corrections department.
C. There is created within the corrections department an "intake and classification
center". The intake and classification center shall have the following duties:
(1) process all inmates sentenced or committed for purposes of diagnosis to
the corrections department;
(2) classify inmates for housing assignments;
(3) develop an individualized plan for participation by each inmate in
programs, work assignments and special needs;
(4) monitor each inmate's progress during incarceration and reclassify or
modify classification assignments as may be necessary, taking into consideration the
overall needs of the inmate population, institutional and facility requirements and the
individual inmate's needs;
(5) with the approval of the secretary of corrections, may transfer inmates of
the penitentiary to an institution under the control of another state if that state has
entered into a corrections control agreement with New Mexico; and
(6) with the approval of the secretary of corrections, may transfer inmates to
any facility, including the forensic hospital under the jurisdiction of the department of
health.
D. A sentence of one year or more but not more than eighteen months and
providing for imprisonment in a place of incarceration other than a corrections facility
under the jurisdiction of the corrections department pursuant to Subsection A of this
section, which shall be known as the local sentencing option, shall not be imposed
unless:
(1) the place of incarceration is located within the county in which the crime
was committed; and
(2) the governing authority in charge of the place of incarceration has entered
into a joint powers agreement with the corrections department setting forth:
(a) the amount of money the corrections department shall pay for offenders
sentenced to a term of one year or more but not more than eighteen months and the
number of offenders which may be sentenced to such terms; and
(b) any other provisions deemed appropriate and agreed to by the local
governing body and the corrections department.
E. If a judge imposes a sentence of one year or more but not more than eighteen
months and provides for imprisonment in a place of incarceration other than a
corrections facility under the jurisdiction of the corrections department:
(1) the local governing body or its agent shall have the ability to petition that
judge when the capacity of the place of incarceration is filled or when any problem
develops concerning that offender requesting the judge to issue an order committing the
offender to the corrections department for completion of the remainder of his sentence.
A hearing on a petition pursuant to this paragraph shall be held within three days of the
filing of the petition. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the judge shall retain
jurisdiction over the offender for the purpose of implementing the local sentencing
option; and
(2) the local governing body or its agent shall keep the district judges for the
judicial district in which the place of incarceration is located informed as to the capacity
for the sentencing of offenders in accordance with the local sentencing option. No judge
shall sentence an offender in accordance with the local sentencing option if that
sentence will result in exceeding the number of offenders set forth in the joint powers
agreement.
F. The corrections department shall file an annual report with the legislature which
shall contain the number of joint powers agreements in operation pursuant to this
section, copies of those agreements, the number of offenders currently incarcerated
pursuant to those agreements and any other relevant information relating to the
implementation of this section.
G. The corrections department may enter into contracts with public or private
detention facilities for the purpose of housing inmates lawfully committed to the
corrections department. Any facility with which the department contracts shall meet or
exceed corrections department standards prior to the housing of any inmates within the
facility and shall meet certification requirements for prisons within eighteen months of
entering into such contracts. The contractor shall adhere to all appropriate corrections
department policies and procedures and shall agree to have staff trained at the
corrections department training academy.
History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-29-13, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 29-13; 1972, ch.
71, § 3; 1973, ch. 383, § 1; and recompiled as 1953 Comp., § 40A-29-37, by Laws
1977, ch. 216, § 16; 1978, ch. 106, § 1; 1981, ch. 9, § 1; 1987, ch. 51, § 1; 1993, ch. 81,
§ 1.
ANNOTATIONS
Cross references. — For Interstate Corrections Compact, see 31-5-17 and 31-5-18
NMSA 1978.
For contracts with the United States attorney general for the housing of convicted
offenders, see 31-5-19 NMSA 1978.
For judgment of imprisonment for more than one year to be in corrections facility, see
33-2-19 NMSA 1978.
For determination of sentence upon several commitments, see 33-2-39 NMSA 1978.
The 1993 amendment, effective July 1, 1993, substituted "contained in this section" for
"herein contained" and "secretary of corrections" for "superintendent" in Subsection B;
substituted "department of health" for "health and environment department" in
Subsection C(6); substituted "this section" for "this act" in two places in Subsection F;
and added Subsection G.
Liability for cost of incarceration in county jail. — The department of corrections is
responsible for the costs of housing parole violators who are incarcerated in a county
jail at the request of the department of corrections. State ex rel., San Miguel Bd of Cnty.
Comm'rs v. Williams, 2007-NMCA-036, 141 N. M. 356, 155 P.3d 761, cert. denied,
2007-NMCERT-003, 141 N.M. 401, 156 P.3d 39.
The provisions of Subsection D are mandatory, not discretionary. State v. Ruiz,
1989-NMCA-109, 109 N.M. 437, 786 P.2d 51, cert. denied, 109 N.M. 419, 785 P.2d
1038 (1990).
Once the defendant's plea is accepted and judgment entered, court has four
options: (1) it can sentence the defendant and execute the sentence, committing him to
prison; (2) it can commit the defendant for a 60-day diagnostic term; (3) it can sentence
the defendant and suspend the execution of the sentence; or (4) it can enter an order
deferring the imposition of the sentence. State v. Kenneman, 1982-NMCA-145, 98 N.M.
794, 653 P.2d 170, cert. denied, 99 N.M. 47, 653 P.2d 878.
Rights not created. — Provisions relating to mechanisms by which corrections officials
can arrange to transfer inmates needing psychiatric care to an appropriate facility were
not meant to create rights enforceable by inmates against state officials; thus, this
section did not create a liberty interest subject to due process protections. Riddle v.
Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 1996).
Order committing defendant to state hospital for indeterminate period not valid
sentence. — An order directing that the defendant be transported to the state hospital
for an indeterminate period and then be returned to the district court for sentencing is
not a valid sentence permitted by law, nor does it constitute a final judgment and
sentence for purposes of an appeal. State v. Garcia, 1983-NMCA-017, 99 N.M. 466,
659 P.2d 918.
Effect of commitment flaws on judgment. — Valid judgment is not to be nullified by
the flaws in the commitment. Shankle v. Woodruff, 1958-NMSC-054, 64 N.M. 88, 324
P.2d 1017.
Effect of misnomer. — Prisoners were not denied habeas corpus where they were
sentenced to the "New Mexico penitentiary" instead of "to the penitentiary of New
Mexico" because the misnomer, if one existed, was a clerical error which did not affect
any substantial right of the appellants. Carter v. New Mexico, 358 F.2d 710 (10th Cir.),
cert. denied, 385 U.S. 873, 87 S. Ct. 146, 17 L. Ed. 2d 100 (1966).
Effect of section where one-year maximum sentence. — Where defendant has a
valid maximum sentence of not more than one year, under Section 33-2-19 NMSA 1978
or this section, the proper place of his confinement is the state penitentiary. State v.
Sawyers, 1968-NMCA-051, 79 N.M. 557, 445 P.2d 978.
Calculation of sentence. — Under Section 33-2-19 NMSA 1978, defendant's sentence
to one year would be calculated as a sentence of less than one year after crediting his
pre-sentence time served; thus, the law did not require the court to sentence him to
prison, and his sentence to jail was legal. State v. Brown, 1999-NMSC-004, 126 N.M.
642, 974 P.2d 136.
Transfer from New Mexico to Texas. — Because a transfer of prisoners from New
Mexico to Texas does not affect the duration of a sentence, a transfer must impose an
atypical or a significant hardship before it can be held to create a liberty interest under
state law. Jordan v. Bowles, No. 96-2169, 124 F.3d 217 (Table) (unpublished) (10th Cir.
1997).
Confinement in county jail held improper. — District court lacked authority to order
defendant confined in the county jail, where defendant's "sentence" was the one-year
term imposed by the judgment of the district court, not the 363 days remaining to be
served on that sentence after imposition of the sentence. State v. Ruiz, 1989-NMCA-
109, 109 N.M. 437, 786 P.2d 51, cert. denied, 109 N.M. 419, 785 P.2d 1038 (1990).
Contracting with counties for housing of inmates. — Corrections department cannot
contract with counties for the housing of inmates committed to the department. 1987
Op. Att'y Gen. No. 87-53.
Law reviews. — For annual survey of New Mexico criminal procedure, see 16 N.M.L.
Rev. 25 (1986).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law §§ 24 et
seq., 825; 32 Am. Jur. 2d False Imprisonment § 16; 60 Am. Jur. 2d Penal and
Correctional Institutions, § 13; 75B Am. Jur. 2d Trial § 1828.
When, under terms of Federal Youth Corrections Act (18 USCS §§ 5005 et seq.), must
prisoner serving youth corrections sentence be segregated from adult prison population,
59 A.L.R. Fed. 746.
24 C.J.S. Criminal Law §§ 1589, 1590.Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case: State v. Anaya, 933 P.2d 223 (N.M. 1996).
State v. Anaya, 933 P.2d 223 (N.M. 1996). “(48) Defendants argue that the Legislature's use of the word "jail" in Section 66-8-102(G) evinces an intent to punish persons convicted under that statute by incarceration in county jails and that the maximum permissible sentence is therefore less than one year.”
State v. Rivera, 82 P.3d 939 (N.M. 2003). “Under the current sentencing scheme, upon the entry of a judgment of conviction, the sentencing court has four options: (1) sentence the defendant and commit the defendant to jail or prison, NMSA 1978, § 31-20-2 (1993); (2) “enter an order deferring the imposition of sentence,”…”
State v. Ruiz, 786 P.2d 51 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989). “In other words, the “sentence” required by Section 31-18-17(B) is not the period of incarceration computed after credit for presentence confinement, which is the definition of “sentence” defendant proposes for Section 31-20-2. We would expect the legislature to use the word…”
State Ex Rel. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Williams, 155 P.3d 761 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). “” NMSA 1978, § 31-20-2(A) (1993). It is clear that the “corrections facility” referred to in these statutes is one under the jurisdiction of the department of corrections.”
State v. Garcia, 659 P.2d 918 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). “Section 31-20-2, N.M.S.A. 1978 (Repl.Pamp.”
State v. Sinyard, 675 P.2d 426 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). “It may sentence the defendant and execute the sentence, committing him to prison, NMSA 1978, § 31-20-2 (Repl.Pamp.1981), or it may act pursuant to any one of the three options in § 31-20-3.”
State v. Arrington, 855 P.2d 133 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). “§ 31-20-2(A) (Repl.Pamp.1990). No argument is made that the trial court’s sentence of Defendant to the custody of her parents is a permissible incarceration pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-2(A) and (D) (Repl.”
State v. Mireles, 2004 NMCA 100 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004). “{41} Upon entry of a judgment of conviction, the court has four basic options: (1) sentence the defendant, executing the sentence by committing him to jail or prison, NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-2 [ (1993) ]; (2) defer imposition of sentence, Section 31-20-3(A); (3) sentence the…”
State v. Kenneman, 653 P.2d 170 (N.M. Ct. App. 1982). “Section 31-20-2, N.M.S.A.1978 (1981 Repl.”
State v. Garcia, 2022 NMCA 008 (N.M. Ct. App. 2021). “See generally NMSA 1978, § 31-20-2(A), (D), (E) (1993) (identifying the circumstances under which a sentence must be served in a facility under NMCD jurisdiction).”
State v. Brown, 974 P.2d 136 (N.M. 1999). “Brown argues that under NMSA 1978, § 31-20-2 (1993), if a defendant receives a sentence of a year or more, the court must sentence the defendant to prison, not to jail.”
State v. Clah, 946 P.2d 210 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997). “Upon entry of a judgment of conviction, the court has four basic options: (1) sentence the defendant, executing the sentence by committing him to jail or prison, NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-2 (Repl. Pamp.1994); (2) defer imposition of sentence, Section 31-20-3(A); (3) sentence the…”
— N.M. Stat. § 31-20-2(A) — 11 cases
State v. Anaya, 933 P.2d 223 (N.M. 1996). “(48) Defendants argue that the Legislature's use of the word "jail" in Section 66-8-102(G) evinces an intent to punish persons convicted under that statute by incarceration in county jails and that the maximum permissible sentence is therefore less than one year.”
State v. Arrington, 855 P.2d 133 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). “§ 31-20-2(A) (Repl.Pamp.1990). No argument is made that the trial court’s sentence of Defendant to the custody of her parents is a permissible incarceration pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-2(A) and (D) (Repl.”
State Ex Rel. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Williams, 155 P.3d 761 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). “” NMSA 1978, § 31-20-2(A) (1993). It is clear that the “corrections facility” referred to in these statutes is one under the jurisdiction of the department of corrections.”
State v. Garcia, 2022 NMCA 008 (N.M. Ct. App. 2021). “See generally NMSA 1978, § 31-20-2(A), (D), (E) (1993) (identifying the circumstances under which a sentence must be served in a facility under NMCD jurisdiction).”
State v. Ruiz, 786 P.2d 51 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989). “In other words, the “sentence” required by Section 31-18-17(B) is not the period of incarceration computed after credit for presentence confinement, which is the definition of “sentence” defendant proposes for Section 31-20-2. We would expect the legislature to use the word…”
— N.M. Stat. § 31-20-2(D) — 1 case
State v. Ruiz, 786 P.2d 51 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989). “In other words, the “sentence” required by Section 31-18-17(B) is not the period of incarceration computed after credit for presentence confinement, which is the definition of “sentence” defendant proposes for Section 31-20-2. We would expect the legislature to use the word…”
— N.M. Stat. § 31-20-2(G) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Williams, 155 P.3d 761 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). “” NMSA 1978, § 31-20-2(A) (1993). It is clear that the “corrections facility” referred to in these statutes is one under the jurisdiction of the department of corrections.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.