Montoya v. Driggers, 5 N.M. 615

Freddie Montoya and a passenger forcibly entered a woman’s vehicle, raped her, and were convicted of multiple crimes including first-degree kidnapping and second-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP II).
Montoya’s requirement to register under New Mexico’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) was based exclusively on the CSP II conviction.
On appeal the Court of Appeals concluded the jury verdicts produced impermissible multiple punishments because CSP II and first‑degree kidnapping were predicated on the same conduct; it remanded to vacate the lesser conviction to remedy a Double Jeopardy violation.
The district court vacated the CSP II conviction pursuant to that mandate, leaving Montoya’s first‑degree kidnapping conviction intact (which had been elevated in part because of the sexual offense finding).
Montoya argued that vacating the CSP II conviction eliminated any predicate conviction requiring SORNA registration; the State contended SORNA registration is civil/remedial and the vacated conviction remains an adjudication of guilt for SORNA purposes.
The Supreme Court affirmed: vacating the CSP II conviction to avoid double punishment does not erase the prior adjudication for SORNA registration, and SORNA is nonpunitive in New Mexico.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether vacating a conviction to avoid double jeopardy removes the conviction as a predicate for SORNA registration	Montoya: vacatur of CSP II removes the conviction; no longer must register	State: vacatur was remedial to avoid double punishment; the underlying adjudication still supports registration; SORNA is nonpunitive	Court held the vacated CSP II conviction remains an adjudication of guilt for SORNA purposes and registration is required; SORNA is civil/remedial

State v. Druktenis, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004) (SORNA is civil, remedial, and nonpunitive)
State v. Montoya, 150 N.M. 415, 259 P.3d 820 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (appellate decision vacating lesser conviction to avoid double punishment)
State v. Hall, 294 P.3d 1235 (N.M. 2013) (statutory interpretation favors broad, remedial reading of SORNA)
State v. Santillanes, 130 N.M. 464, 27 P.3d 456 (N.M. 2001) (vacatur of the lesser offense required to remedy multiple punishments)
State v. Armendariz, 140 N.M. 712, 148 P.3d 198 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (analysis of supporting elements across offenses)
State v. Herbstman, 126 N.M. 683, 974 P.2d 177 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (defining conviction, deferred sentence, and conditional discharge)
State v. Swick, 279 P.3d 747 (N.M. 2012) (legislative intent governs whether multiple statutory punishments may apply)