N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 31 / Article 20
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 31-20-9 (2026)

Completion of total term of deferment.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
Whenever the period of deferment expires, the defendant is relieved of any
obligations imposed on him by the order of the court and has satisfied his criminal
liability for the crime, the court shall enter a dismissal of the criminal charges.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-29-22, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 29-22; and
recompiled as 1953 Comp., § 40A-29-45, by Laws 1977, ch. 216, § 16.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Difference between suspension and deferral is that suspension involves a sentence
imposed while deferral does not. With suspension, the sentence having been imposed,
the court cannot later alter the sentence upwards. With deferral, no sentence having
been imposed, the court may give any sentence it could originally have given. State v.
Kenneman, 98 N.M. 794, 653 P.2d 170 (Ct. App.), cert. denied, 99 N.M. 47, 653 P.2d
878 (1982).

Legislature authorized to define court's jurisdiction over sentencing. — It is within
the power of the legislature alone to define the court's jurisdiction over the sentencing of
offenders. State v. Travarez, 99 N.M. 309, 657 P.2d 636 (Ct. App. 1983).

Court lacks jurisdiction in probation revocation matter when period of deferred
sentence expires. — This section relieves the defendant of any obligations imposed on
him by order of the court when the period of his deferred sentence expires, and he is
deemed then to have satisfied his liability for the crime. The trial court thereafter lacks
jurisdiction to proceed in a probation revocation matter. State v. Travarez, 99 N.M. 309,
657 P.2d 636 (Ct. App. 1983).

Prior conviction, not prior sentence, is dispositive for repeat offender status. —
Where defendant was convicted of drug charges in New Mexico; the New Mexico court
deferred defendant’s sentence for a two-year probationary period; the deferred
sentence was a final judgment subject to appeal; and after defendant successfully
completed the probation, defendant was entitled to have the New Mexico charges
dismissed, the deferred sentence was a prior conviction for purposes of sentence
enhancement. United States v. Meraz, 998 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1993).

Sex offender registration. — When a deferred sentence expires and charges are
dismissed, a conviction is not eradicated: thus, a defendant convicted under the Sex
Offender Registration and Notification Act, Sections 29-11A-1 to 29-11A-8 NMSA 1978,
is still subject to the registration requirements of that act. State v. Brothers, 2002-
NMCA-110, 133 N.M. 36, 59 P.3d 1268, cert. denied, 133 N.M. 30, 59 P.3d 1262
(2002).
Restoration of right to vote. — A person seeking restoration of franchise after a
suspended sentence must go to the governor for relief, but a dismissal order under this
section is intended to restore the right to vote automatically. 1973 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-
44.

Restoration of firearms privileges. — A defendant who receives a deferred sentence
is not subject to the criminal sanctions imposed by Section 30-7-16 NMSA 1978,
governing receipt, transportation or possession of firearms by felons. Firearms
privileges are automatically restored when a person successfully completes the period
of a deferred sentence. 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-03.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Pardoned or expunged conviction as
"prior offense" under state statute or regulation enhancing punishment for subsequent
conviction, 97 A.L.R.5th 293.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2022 · leading case: State v. Bros., 59 P.3d 1268 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bros., 59 P.3d 1268 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 31-20-9 (1977), Defendant filed a motion in the criminal case to dismiss all charges against him based on his satisfactory completion of the terms and conditions of supervised probation.”
State v. Lara, 9 P.3d 74 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “Section 31-20-8 provides that a defendant is relieved of any court imposed obligations and has satisfied his criminal liability for the crime “[w]henever the period of suspension expires without revocation of the order.”
State v. Ordunez, 2012 NMSC 24 (N.M. 2012). · cites it 2× “” Similar provisions in NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-9 (1977), apply to expiration ofprobation under a deferred sentence.”
State v. Gaddy, 792 P.2d 1163 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “Relying on NMSA 1978, § 31-20-9 (Repl.Pamp. 1987), this court held that by the terms of that statute, defendant was deemed to have satisfied his liability for the crime upon expiration of the original two-year probation period, and that the trial court had no further…”
State v. Travarez, 657 P.2d 636 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “Significantly, the legislature repealed § 41-7-1, supra, and enacted § 31-20-9, supra, which terminates a defendant’s criminal liability when his term of deferment expires.”
State v. Davis, 2007 NMCA 022 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “NMSA 1978, § 31-20-9 (1977). Whenever the period of suspension expires without revocation of the order, the defendant is relieved of any obligations imposed on him by the order of the court and has satisfied his criminal liability for the crime.”
United States v. Reese, 2014 NMSC 013 (N.M. 2014). · cites it 8× “See NMSA 1978, § 31-20-9 (1977) (providing the result of completing a deferred sentence, including “a dismissal of the criminal charge”).”
Reid v. Pautler, 36 F. Supp. 3d 1067 (D.N.M. 2014). · cites it 2× “See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-20-9 (“Whenever the period of deferment expires, the defendant is relieved of any obligations imposed on him by the order of the court and has satisfied his criminal liability for the crime, the court shall enter a dismissal of the criminal charges.”
State v. Kenneman, 653 P.2d 170 (N.M. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “Section 31-20-9, N.M.S.A.1978 (1981 Repl.”
State v. Apache, 720 P.2d 709 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Section 31-20-8 provides that whenever a period of suspension expires without revocation of the order, the probationer has satisfied his criminal liability for the crime and is relieved of any obligations imposed on him by the order.”
Albin v. Bakas, 160 P.3d 923 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 31-20-3 (1985) (providing that upon entry of a judgment of conviction, the court may enter an order deferring the imposition of sentence); NMSA 1978, § 31-20-9 (1977) (providing that when the period of deferment expires, the defendant has satisfied his criminal…”
United States v. Reese, 505 F. App'x 733 (10th Cir. 2012). “See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-20-3 (A), 31-20-5(A).”
Show all 20 citing cases →
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.