Source: organmountainnews.com 6/17/26
The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that sex offender parole applies to certain convictions even when a defendant does not serve time in state prison.
The justices ruled an Otero County man was improperly discharged from a five- to 20-year parole term after his prison sentence was satisfied by jail credit.
Organ Mountain News report
SANTA FE – The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that people convicted of certain sex crimes must serve an indeterminate parole term even if they do not serve time in state prison.
In a unanimous opinion, the justices ruled that an Otero County man was improperly discharged from a five- to 20-year sex offender parole term. The Court rejected Hezekiah Eaker’s argument that the parole law did not apply to him because he did not serve time in prison on his criminal sexual penetration conviction.
“Indeterminate sex offender parole is in fact imposed at sentencing because the Legislature has stated in Section 31-21-10.1(A) that the district court must include it in the judgment and sentence for certain enumerated sex crimes,” Chief Justice Julie J. Vargas wrote for the Court.
The Court said parole attaches at sentencing along with the basic sentence, even though the parole term does not begin until the initial sentence is completed.
Eaker pleaded no contest in 2012 to third-degree criminal sexual penetration and incest. The Administrative Office of the Courts said prosecutors did not oppose a conditional discharge, which was guided by the wishes of the victim, a close relative.
Under a conditional discharge, no conviction is formally entered if the defendant successfully completes probation.
The district court placed Eaker on five years of supervised probation but warned him that future incarceration in the case would result in a five- to 20-year sex offender parole term.
Prosecutors later moved to revoke…
Not sure why someone would plead guilty to incest. Someone needs to fight it as I would think it would apply as the same standards in Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
The Court ruled that the Texas statute violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The majority held that:
Privacy in the home: The state has no legitimate interest in controlling consensual sexual conduct between adults in private residences.
Rejection of moral disapproval: The fact that a majority traditionally views a practice as immoral is insufficient justification for criminalization.