Summary
The New Mexico Supreme Court held that, for purposes of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, an out-of-state offense is equivalent to a registrable New Mexico offense when the defendant's actual conduct would have constituted such an offense in New Mexico. In cases arising from guilty or nolo contendere pleas, courts may consider charging documents, plea agreements, and plea-hearing transcripts to determine the factual basis for the conviction. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded because the record was insufficient to establish Hall's actual conduct, allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What test determines whether an out-of-state sex offense is equivalent to one of the registrable New Mexico offenses under SORNA?
- When an out-of-state conviction results from a plea agreement, what materials may a New Mexico court examine to determine the conduct underlying the conviction?
- Was the record sufficient to establish that Hall's California offense was equivalent to a registrable New Mexico offense?
- Do comity and the Full Faith and Credit Clause require Hall to register in New Mexico based solely on his California conviction or registration obligation?
Holdings
- An out-of-state offense is equivalent to a registrable New Mexico offense under SORNA when the defendant's actual conduct underlying the out-of-state conviction, if committed in New Mexico, would have constituted one of the enumerated New Mexico offenses requiring registration. Courts may look beyond the statutory elements when the elements are not identical.
- When an out-of-state sex-offense conviction results from a guilty or nolo contendere plea, a New Mexico court may consider the charging document, written plea agreement, and transcript of the plea hearing to determine the factual basis for the plea and whether the defendant necessarily engaged in conduct constituting a registrable New Mexico offense.
- The record was insufficient to determine whether Hall's California conduct would have constituted a registrable New Mexico offense. The State's unsupported assertions were not evidence, and the State had not established facts such as the victims' ages, the applicable aggravating circumstances, or whether Hall touched statutorily defined intimate parts.
- Comity and the Full Faith and Credit Clause do not require New Mexico to treat Hall's California conviction as per se registrable. Registration is a matter of New Mexico law, and New Mexico may independently determine whether the foreign conduct is equivalent to a New Mexico registrable offense.
Key quotations
“We hold that an offense is “equivalent” to a New Mexico offense, for purposes of SORNA, if the defendant’s actual conduct that gave rise to the out-of-state conviction would have constituted one of the twelve enumerated offenses requiring registration pursuant to SORNA.” (¶ 1)
“A New Mexico court should consider the facts stated in such documents when determining whether the conduct underlying the plea would have constituted a violation of one of the twelve enumerated SORNA offenses that require sex offender registration.” (¶ 22)
“It is not our practice to rely on assertions of counsel unaccompanied by support in the record. The mere assertions and arguments of counsel are not evidence.” (¶ 28)
“To determine whether a foreign sex offense is equivalent to a New Mexico sex offense for purposes of SORNA, and where the two offenses when compared do not share the exact same elements, a court must look beyond the elements of the offense and consider whether the defendant’s actual conduct, had it occurred in New Mexico, would have constituted a registrable offense.” (¶ 30)
Factual background
Bruce Hall had been convicted in California under a misdemeanor statute prohibiting annoying or molesting a child under eighteen and was required to register as a sex offender there. After moving to New Mexico, Hall acknowledged to police that he was a convicted California sex offender but was not registered in New Mexico. The State alleged that the California conviction arose from Hall touching the private parts of several boys while lifting them to look through a camera viewfinder, but the record contained no stipulation, allocution, or other substantiated evidence establishing the victims' ages or the locations of the alleged touching.
Procedural history
Hall was charged with fourth-degree felony failure to register under SORNA after moving to New Mexico following a California sex-offense conviction. The district court denied his motion to dismiss, and Hall entered a conditional guilty plea. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the California offense was not equivalent to a registrable New Mexico offense under an elements-based analysis. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded because the record was insufficient to determine Hall's actual conduct.
Remand instructions
Remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The State may produce evidence establishing whether Hall's actual conduct underlying the California conviction was equivalent to a registrable New Mexico offense, and Hall may withdraw his guilty plea.