New Mexico v. Jones, 2010-NMSC-012 (N.M. 2010)

In New Mexico v. Jones, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that before an adult sentence is imposed on a young person based on the state’s “Youthful Offender” status, which enables either a juvenile or adult sentence, an amenability hearing must first be held to determine whether a young person is amenable to rehabilitation or treatment in the juvenile legal system. The court offered the following language in support: 

“The requirements for youthful offenders, by contrast, are more complicated. Youthful offenders are delinquent children who potentially face either juvenile or adult sanctions, depending on the outcome of a special proceeding after adjudication known as an amenability hearing. A youthful offender is a child between the ages of 14 and 18 who is either (1) adjudicated guilty of any of a series of listed offenses which have less serious consequences than first-degree murder, including child abuse resulting in great bodily harm or death, or (2) adjudicated of any felony offense after having been adjudicated of three separate felony offenses in the preceding three years. See § 32A-2-3(J). The youthful offender category also includes children who are 14 years old and adjudicated of first-degree murder. Id. 

Like serious youthful offenders, alleged youthful offenders may be subject to the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts, see Rule 10-101(A)(2)(b), and may be sentenced as adults, see § 32A-2-20. However, unlike a serious youthful offender, an alleged youthful offender is not automatically treated as an adult. To treat a child as a youthful offender–subject the child to adult sanctions–the State must comply with certain procedural requirements of the Delinquency Act and the Children’s Court Rules. See § 32A-2-20   

… 

Most significantly, before the trial court may sentence an adjudicated youthful offender as an adult, the court must make two findings: (1) the child is not amenable to treatment or rehabilitation, and (2) the child is not eligible for commitment to an institution for the developmentally disabled or mentally disordered. See § 32A-2-20(B). The court must make these findings after considering evidence related to the youthful offender’s history, the nature of the crime, and the child’s potential threat to the public. See § 32A-2-20(C). 

…. 

Taken as a whole, this history demonstrates a carefully calibrated grant of judicial authority to sentence children as adults. In light of the relatively long lineage of the amenability proceeding, its continued presence in the Delinquency Act cannot be ignored or tacitly diminished. We are persuaded that the Legislature intended to make an amenability determination a necessary predicate to the court’s exercise of adult sentencing authority. Cf. Kent, 383 U.S. at 560-61 (holding that a transfer hearing is a “critically important proceeding” because, under a juvenile statutory scheme, “non-criminal treatment is to be the rule–and the adult criminal treatment, the exception” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).”