Office of the
New Mexico
Director Compilation
Commission
2024.10.28
'00'06- 11:18:07
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Opinion Number: 2024-NMCA-076
Filing Date: October 4, 2024
No. A-1-CA-42156
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROMAINE BEGAY,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY
Jennifer Delaney, District Court Judge
Raúl Torrez, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
Tyler Sciara, Assistant Solicitor General
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee
Mario A. R. Carreon
Las Cruces, NM
for Appellant
OPINION
WRAY, Judge.
{1} This matter is before us on expedited appeal pursuant to Rule 12-204 NMRA.
The district court granted the State’s motion for pretrial detention under Rule 5-409
NMRA, and Defendant appeals. Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm. Further,
we write in this case to explain this Court’s understanding and application of our
Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Anderson, 2023-NMSC-019,
536 P.3d 453.
{2} Our Supreme Court has interpreted Article II, Section 13 of the New Mexico
Constitution, to allow “a defendant charged with a felony [to] be detained without bail
prior to trial if the [s]tate demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the
defendant is dangerous and (2) no release conditions will reasonably protect the safety
of any individual or the community.” Anderson, 2023-NMSC-019, ¶ 1. To determine
whether the state has met its burden to justify pretrial detention without bond, district
courts are instructed to consider a number of factors, as well as “any fact relevant to the
nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be
posed by the defendant’s release and any fact relevant to the issue of whether any
conditions of release will reasonably protect the safety of any person or the community.”
Rule 5-409(F)(6). The district court is afforded great discretion to conduct this balance.
See Anderson,
2023-NMSC-019, ¶ 34. Nevertheless, the district court must “consider all
facts relevant to the detention inquiry” and “must always conduct a totality of the
circumstances analysis in reaching a decision on pretrial detention.” Id. ¶ 60.
{3} In the present case, the district court granted the State’s motion to detain
Defendant. On appeal, Defendant does not challenge the district court’s determination
of dangerousness. Instead, Defendant argues that the district court did not consider
“less restrictive conditions of release rather than incarceration,” including the impact of
incarceration on Defendant’s family and Defendant’s lack of criminal history, significant
community ties, and resignation from teaching. On appeal, we “reverse a district court’s
ruling on pretrial detention if the ruling ‘is arbitrary, capricious, or reflects an abuse of
discretion; is not supported by substantial evidence; or is otherwise not in accordance
with law.’” Id. ¶ 34 (alteration omitted) (quoting Rule 12-204(D)(2)(b)).
{4} Our Supreme Court has directed that when considering whether any conditions
of release will reasonably protect the safety of any person or the community, “the district
court must consider not only whether a defendant is likely to comply with release
conditions but also the likely consequences to any person or the community should a
defendant fail to comply.” Anderson, 2023-NMSC-019, ¶ 58. This evaluation is not
independent from, but instead “must be viewed in light of, the magnitude of a
defendant’s dangerousness.” Id. ¶ 59. We view this to require that the district court, in
considering the efficacy of conditions of release, specifically weigh the defendant’s
history of committing dangerous crimes together with the dangerousness of the charged
crime, the likelihood that the defendant will violate conditions of release, the risks to the
community if the defendant does violate conditions of release, and any other relevant
circumstances. See id. (noting that “the district court must evaluate each case on its
particular facts and consider the totality of the circumstances”); Rule 5-409(F) (requiring
the district court to consider “any fact relevant” to the inquiries).
{5} That balance in the present case involved Defendant’s criminal history and
convictions for any violent crimes together with any evidence that Defendant might
violate conditions imposed on him and the risk to the children of the community should
Defendant violate those conditions. In the order, the district court noted Defendant’s
lack of criminal history and the absence of evidence that Defendant might violate
conditions as well as the dangerousness of the charged crime, the evidence supporting
the charges, and Defendant’s existing relationships with children in the community. To
the extent that Defendant argues that the impact of pretrial detention on Defendant’s
family is relevant, while we do not hold that such an inquiry is required we note that the
district court weighed those facts in the balance. The district court reviewed evidence
that Defendant’s wife requires assistance with day-to-day tasks and that his son had to
attend college remotely to care for her while Defendant was incarcerated. The district
court explained that it had considered “how to ensure the community’s safety if you
were released based on the horrific situation that you’ve put your family in” but
expressed unwillingness to “take the risk” that others would be harmed by Defendant’s
conduct. This balance, the district court explained at the hearing, rendered the risk to
the community too great should Defendant violate conditions of release. As a result, the
district court found by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release could
“be fashioned at this time that would keep the community safe.” In light of the whole
record, we conclude that the district court’s decision is not “unreasonable or without
rational basis” and is supported by evidence “that a reasonable mind would find
adequate.” See id. ¶ 34.
{6} We therefore affirm the district court’s order granting the State’s motion for
pretrial detention.
{7} IT IS SO ORDERED.
KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge
WE CONCUR:
KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
