Compare versions

--- version:introduced version
+++ version:(document, no version)
@@ -1,129 +1,192 @@
-underscored material = new[bracketed material] = delete
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
-21
-22
-23
-24
-25
-HOUSE BILL 73
-57TH LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - SECOND SESSION, 2026
-INTRODUCED BY
-Andrea Reeb and Luis M. Terrazas and Nicole Chavez
-AN ACT
-RELATING TO CRIMINAL SENTENCING; PROVIDING THAT A COURT MAY
-DEFER OR SUSPEND NO MORE THAN TWO-THIRDS OF THE BASIC SENTENCE
-FOR A CONVICTION OF A SECOND OR THIRD DEGREE FELONY OFFENSE IF
-THE DEFENDANT WAS PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF ANY FELONY OFFENSE;
-MAKING CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
-BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
-SECTION 1.  Section 31-20-3 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1963,
-Chapter 303, Section 29-15, as amended) is amended to read:
-"31-20-3.  ORDER DEFERRING OR SUSPENDING SENTENCE--
-DIAGNOSTIC COMMITMENT.--
-A.  Except as provided in Subsection B of this
-section, upon [entry of] entering a judgment of conviction of
-any crime not constituting a capital or first degree felony,
-[any] a court [having jurisdiction when it is] satisfied that
-.232714.1
-underscored material = new[bracketed material] = delete
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
-21
-22
-23
-24
-25
-the ends of justice and the best [interest] interests of the
-public [as well as] and the defendant will be served [thereby]
-may either:
-[A.] (1)  enter an order deferring the
-imposition of the basic sentence;
-[B.] (2)  sentence the defendant and enter an
-order suspending in whole or in part the execution of the basic
-sentence; or
-[C.] (3)  commit the convicted person, if
-convicted of a felony and not committed for diagnostic purposes
-within the twelve-month period immediately preceding that
-conviction, to the [department of] corrections department for
-an indeterminate period not to exceed sixty days for purposes
-of diagnosis, with direction that the court be given a report
-when the diagnosis is complete as to what disposition appears
-best when the [interest] interests of the public and the
-individual are evaluated.
-B.  Upon entering a judgment of conviction of a
-second or third degree felony offense for a defendant who was
-previously convicted of any felony offense, a court satisfied
-that the ends of justice and the best interests of the public
-and the defendant will be served may enter an order deferring
-the imposition or suspending the execution of no more than two-
-thirds of the basic sentence for that second or third degree
-felony offense; provided that the court may otherwise alter the
-.232714.1
-- 2 -
-underscored material = new[bracketed material] = delete
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
-21
-22
-23
-24
-25
-basic sentence based on mitigating or aggravating circumstances
-as provided by law."
-- 3 -
-.232714.1
+Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Le gislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
+committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for th e accuracy of these reports if they
+are used for other purposes.
+
+F I S C A L    I M P A C T    R E P O R T
+
+BILL NUMBER: House Bill 73
+SHORT TITLE: Sentence Deferment for Repeat Offender
+SPONSOR: Reeb/Terrazas
+LAST
+UPDATE:
+ ORIGINAL
+DATE:
+
+02/02/2026
+
+ANALYST: Sanchez
+
+ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
+(dollars in thousands)
+Agency/Program FY26 FY27 FY28 3 Year
+Total Cost
+Recurring or
+Nonrecurring
+Fund
+Affected
+NMCD No fiscal impact At least $27.2 At leas t $27.2 At least $54.4 Recurring General Fund
+Total No fiscal
+impact At least $27.2 At least $27.2 At least $54.4 Recurring General Fund
+Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
+*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
+
+Relates to House Bill 74
+
+Sources of Information
+
+LFC Files
+
+Agency or Agencies Providing Analysis
+Administrative Office of the District Attorneys
+Law Offices of the Public Defender
+Adult Parole Board
+Corrections Department
+
+Agency or Agencies That Were Asked for Analysis but did not Respond
+New Mexico Sentencing Commission
+Administrative Office of the Courts
+
+SUMMARY
+
+Synopsis of House Bill 73
+
+House Bill 73 (HB73) seeks to  amend Section 31-20-3 NMSA 1978 of the Criminal Sentencing
+Act to restrict the authority of courts to defe r or suspend sentences for certain felony offenses
+when a defendant has a prior felony conviction. Specifically, the bill proposes that, upon entering
+a judgment of conviction for a s econd- or third-degree felony, a court may not defer or suspend
+more than two-thirds of the basic sentence if th e defendant has previously been convicted of any
+felony. This limitation would apply regardless of the nature or ju risdiction of the prior felony, as
+long as it qualifies as a felony under New Mexico law. Section 31- 20-3 currently allows judicial
+discretion to defer or suspend sentences for non-capital and non-first-degree felony crimes when
+House Bill 73 – Page 2
+
+the court is satisfied that the defendant’s beha vior merits such leniency. HB73 narrows this
+discretion in cases involving a history of felony conviction, thereby mandating a minimum
+incarceration threshold of one-third of the basic sentence for repeat felony offenders convicted of
+second- or third-degree felonies.
+
+The bill retains existing prohibi tions on deferring or suspending sentences for capital and first-
+degree felony convictions, which are categorically  excluded from such relief under current law.
+The statutory language revision changes the phrase “entry of ” to “entering” a judgment of
+conviction and modernizes the prov ision's structure for clarity a nd conformity w ith legislative
+drafting conventions. The legisl ation represents a substantiv e policy change in sentencing
+practices by conditioning judici al leniency on a de fendant's criminal hi story, which could
+increase the time served by certain offenders. This  change could have direct implications for
+judicial sentencing discretion, in carceration rates, and correctiona l system resource allocation.
+By amending Section 31-20-3 NMSA 1978 in th is manner, HB73 effec tively establishes a
+statutory floor for sentence execution in specified felony cases involving recidivist offenders.
+
+This bill does not contain an effective date and, as  a result, would go into effect 90 days after the
+Legislature adjourns, which is May 20, 2026.
+
+FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
+
+Incarceration drives costs in the criminal jus tice system, so any changes in the number of
+individuals in prison and the length of time serv ed that might result from HB73 could have
+significant fiscal implications for the state. HB73 amends Section 31-20-3 NMSA 1978 to limit a
+court’s discretion to defer or su spend a sentence for certain felony convicti ons if the defendant
+has a prior felony. As a result, more individuals may be senten ced to prison terms that would
+have otherwise been served on probation or with  a suspended sentence. Additionally, individuals
+already incarcerated may serve lo nger periods in custody because of the one-third sentencing
+floor established by the bill.
+
+The Corrections Department repor ts the average annual cost to incarcerate an inmate in New
+Mexico in FY25 was approximately $61.5 thousand. However, because the state operates on a
+fixed-cost prison infrastructure, the Legislativ e Finance Committee (LFC) estimates a marginal
+cost of $27.2 thousand per additional inmate pe r year. Any increase in the prison population
+resulting from this bill will accrue costs at this marginal rate. Over  time, even a modest increase
+in admissions or sentence lengths  could result in measurable growth in overall correctional
+spending.
+
+The Law Office of the Public Defender (LOPD) anticipates HB73 could lead to a higher volume
+of felony jury trials. By removing the incentive of a fully suspended or deferred sentence, the bill
+could reduce plea agreements a nd increase the number of defendant s opting to proceed to trial.
+According to LOPD workload data, trials requ ire significantly more attorney time—up to 40
+hours per trial compared to 3.5 hours per plea in crimes against persons.  If only 10 percent of
+repeat felony cases went to trial rather than resolving through pleas, LOPD estimates additional
+costs of at least $1 million annually. If the share of  trials is higher, to tal agency costs could
+approach $10 million annually statewide.
+
+These projected costs align with LFC’s esta blished fiscal analysis methodology, which
+recognizes that increasing penalties or limiting judicial discretion typically raises long-term costs
+House Bill 73 – Page 3
+
+by increasing prison admissions or average le ngths of stay. Although  the exact number of
+individuals affected by the bill is uncertain, th e bill's structure—restricting sentence reductions
+for repeat felony offenders—makes it likely that  some proportion of second- and third-degree
+felony convictions will result in longer incar ceration. This trend is expected to increase
+cumulative state correctional costs over time. As  with other measures  affecting criminal
+sentencing, these impacts are more predictable and quantifiable than cost changes for other
+actors in the justice system, such as courts or law enforcement, which are not included in this
+estimate but may also experience workload increases.
+
+SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
+
+HB73 proposes a statutory limit ation on judicial discretion in sentencing, which marks a
+departure from longstanding prin ciples of individualized sentencing in New Mexico law. Under
+current law, trial courts are afforded broad aut hority to suspend or defe r all or part of a non-
+capital sentence, provided the court determines th at doing so serves the interests of justice and
+the best interests of both the defendant and the public. Courts may also modify sentences based
+on statutory mitigating or aggrav ating factors, tailoring outcomes to the circumstances of the
+offense and the offender. By capping suspension or deferral of the basic sentence at two-thirds
+for repeat felony offenders convicted of second-  or third-degree felonies, HB73 alters the
+framework under which courts make those individualized determinations.
+
+Because the bill applies regardless of the type or  age of the prior felony, it may raise procedural
+questions related to how prior convictions are va lidated and challenged. This could result in
+more frequent litigation at sentenci ng regarding the applicability of prior records, particularly in
+cases involving out-of-state or older convictio ns. Although the bill does not amend habitual
+offender sentencing under Section 31-18-17 NM SA 1978, which already imposes mandatory
+sentence enhancements in certain cases involvi ng prior felonies, HB73 introduces an additional
+sentencing constraint that may intersect with or dupl icate these provisions. Unlike habitual
+sentencing enhancements, which permit limited judicial depart ure under specified findings,
+HB73 contains no provision for individualized depa rture once the statutory criteria are met,
+potentially leading to overlaps or inconsistencies in application.
+
+Legal precedent in New Mexico ha s consistently emphasized judicial discretion in sentencing as
+a core feature of the state's criminal justice appro ach, allowing courts to consider the totality of
+the circumstances in each case. Shifting that discretion through categorical sentencing limits may
+affect judicial workload, plea negotiations, and c onsistency across judicial districts. While the
+policy rationale for HB73 centers on recidivism, its uniform appli cation to all repeat felony
+offenders, regardless of the nature or severity of the prior offense, could lead to uniform
+sentencing outcomes across dissimilar cases. This  may, in turn, affect broader goals of
+proportionality and individualized justice in sentencing practices.
+
+OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
+
+While HB73 does not alter the stat utory definitions of crimes or sentencing ranges, the proposed
+limitation on suspended and deferred  sentencing authority may indi rectly influence outcomes in
+cases where the presence of a prio r felony is disputed or unclear . In such cases, courts and
+counsel may need to allocate additional time and resources to verify the existence, validity, and
+applicability of prior convictions, including those from other jurisdictions. This may increase the
+House Bill 73 – Page 4
+
+complexity of certain sentencing hearings even if the underlying adjudication is straightforward.
+
+In addition, HB73 may have intersecting effects with the state’s existing habitual offender statute
+(Section 31-18-17 NMSA 1978), wh ich already imposes mandatory  sentence enhancements
+based on prior felony convictions. While both stat utes are designed to address recidivism, HB73
+introduces a separate procedural layer related to  sentence execution rather than sentence length.
+Because habitual offender enhancements are not deferrable or suspendable unless the court
+makes specific findings in cases involving nonviolent offenses, HB73 may functionally duplicate
+that constraint in some cases wh ile applying more broadl y in others. This cr eates the possibility
+of dual restrictions—enhanced sentence length and reduced discretion over suspension—for
+defendants with qualifying prio r convictions. The cumulative effect may lead to longer
+incarceration periods even for cases that do not qualify under the habitual sentencing framework.
+
+The bill’s uniform standard, which applies the tw o-thirds suspension cap to any prior felony
+regardless of its age, severity, or relationship to the current offense, may also result in sentencing
+outcomes that do not distinguish between types of recidivism. Wh ile this uniform ity simplifies
+statutory application, it may also constrain judicial fl exibility in cases where the prior offense
+was nonviolent, remote in time, or otherwise less indicative of ris k. These structural features of
+the bill may lead to broader systemic shifts  in plea negotiations, se ntencing patterns, and
+correctional population profiles over time, particularly if courts and practitioners adjust their case
+strategies in anticipation of reduced discretion in sentencing options.
+
+CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
+
+HB73 relates to House Bill 74, as both propo se changes to Section 31-18-17 NMSA 1978
+governing habitual offender sentencing enhanc ements and would expand the circumstances
+under which prior felony convictions can trigger enhanced penalties.
+
+SS/dw/sgs