State v. Winn, 435 P.3d 1247

In 1999 Winn (then 15) was tried in Colorado and convicted by a jury of misdemeanor third-degree sexual assault (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-404(1)) and felony first-degree assault; the sexual-assault conviction was sentenced as a class 1 misdemeanor.
Winn later moved to New Mexico and was indicted in 2014 for failure to register as a sex offender under New Mexico’s SORNA.
The State argued Winn’s Colorado conviction was equivalent to a New Mexico registrable sex offense (e.g., criminal sexual contact of a minor or criminal sexual penetration) and submitted an unsigned, unfiled Colorado presentence report to establish the factual basis.
Winn moved to dismiss under Foulenfont and Hall, arguing (1) the Colorado misdemeanor statute’s elements do not match any enumerated SORNA offense and (2) the State failed to prove the jury necessarily found facts (force, coercion, penetration, etc.) that would make the conduct equivalent.
The district court denied the motion; Winn entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the denial. The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Winn’s Colorado misdemeanor conviction is "equivalent" to a New Mexico SORNA offense	State: Winn’s underlying conduct (as shown in the presentence report) amounted to conduct equivalent to CSCM or CSP, so SORNA applies	Winn: Elements of Colo. § 18-3-404(1) do not match New Mexico enumerated offenses; absent proof that the out-of-state factfinder necessarily found elements like force, coercion, or penetration, there is no equivalency	Court: Reversed. Statutory elements differ; judgment shows misdemeanor conviction under § 18-3-404(1) (which lacks force/penetration elements), so the Colorado jury did not necessarily find facts that would make the offense equivalent to a New Mexico registrable sex offense
Whether the district court properly relied on an unsigned, unfiled Colorado presentence report to establish the out-of-state jury’s necessarily found facts	State: Hall does not categorically bar consideration of investigative/presentence reports; investigative reports may be used if reliable	Winn: The unsigned, unfiled presentence report is unauthenticated hearsay and does not show what the Colorado jury necessarily found; it is unreliable and inadmissible to establish equivalency	Court: The district court erred to the extent it relied on that presentence report. An out-of-state factfinder’s necessarily found facts must be shown by admissible, authenticated materials; the record here did not establish equivalency

State v. Hall, 294 P.3d 1235 (N.M. 2013) (to determine SORNA equivalency courts look to the defendant’s actual conduct that the out-of-state factfinder necessarily found)
State v. Foulenfont, 895 P.2d 1329 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (district court may decide purely legal matters pretrial)
State v. Orr, 304 P.3d 449 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (when elements differ, state must present admissible evidence of underlying conduct; remand appropriate if record lacks substantiation)
State v. Stevens, 323 P.3d 901 (N.M. 2014) (requires evidence of causal connection between sex act and felony for certain CSP convictions)