A. Escape from a community custody release program consists of a person, excluding a person on probation or parole, who has been lawfully committed to a judicially approved community custody release program, including a day reporting program, an electronic monitoring program, a day detention program or a community tracking program, escaping or attempting to escape from the community custody release program. B. Whoever commits escape from a community custody release program, when the person was committed to the program for a misdemeanor charge, is guilty of a misdemeanor. C. Whoever commits escape from a community custody release program, when the person was committed to the program for a felony charge, is guilty of a felony. History: Laws 1999, ch. 118, § 1. Effective dates. — Laws 1999, ch. 118, § 2, made the act effective on July 1, 1999. Willfulness is not an essential element of escape from a community custody release program. — Where, as a condition of release from jail during the course of a separate criminal proceeding, defendant was enrolled in a community custody release program, and where defendant, following an altercation with the custodian to whom defendant was released, fled the custodian's residence, and where defendant's community custody release program officer filed a criminal complaint charging defendant with escape from a community custody release program, and where, at trial, defendant argued that willfulness is an essential element of the crime of escape from a community custody release program and that the jury should be instructed accordingly, the district court did not err in denying defendant's requested instruction, because the plain language of NMSA 1978, § 30-22-8.1(A) indicates the legislature did not intend to include willfulness as an element of escape from a community custody release program. State v. Coble , 2023-NMCA-079, cert. denied. Defendant was not entitled to a duress instruction. — Where, as a condition of release from jail during the course of a separate criminal proceeding, defendant was enrolled in a community custody release program, and where defendant, following an altercation with the custodian to whom defendant was released, fled the custodian's residence, and where defendant's community custody release program officer filed a criminal complaint charging defendant with escape from a community custody release program, and where, at trial, defendant claimed that he was entitled to a duress instruction as an affirmative defense to escape from a community custody release program and that his trial counsel's failure to request such an instruction amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel or alternatively, the district court's failure to sua sponte instruct on duress amounted to fundamental error, the district court did not err in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on duress and trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a duress instruction, because duress is a continuing offense, and there was no evidence that any claimed duress continued during the entire thirty-four day period while defendant remained voluntarily at large. Defendant, therefore, was not entitled to a duress instruction. State v. Coble , 2023-NMCA-079, cert. denied. Electronic monitoring programs. — Electronic monitoring programs may be used as part of a community custody release program: they are not limited to probation and parole programs. State v. Frost , 2003-NMCA-002, 133 N.M. 45, 60 P.3d 492, cert. denied, 133 N.M. 126, 61 P.3d 835. Community release programs. — A case by case release of defendants may be considered as a judicially approved community release program. State v. Duhon , 2005-NMCA-120, 138 N.M. 466, 122 P.3d 50, cert. quashed, 2006-NMCERT-003, 139 N.M. 352, 132 P.3d 1038. Habitual offender enhancement not prohibited. — Where defendant was convicted of felony possession of a controlled substance and subsequently committed to a community custody release program (CCP), and where two weeks after being committed to CCP, defendant cut off his ankle monitor and failed to respond to messages from monitoring officers, it was not error for the State to use Defendant's felony possession charge to determine whether to charge defendant for misdemeanor or felony escape from CCP and to use defendant's felony possession conviction to enhance his sentence for escape from CCP, because defendant's degree of escape from CCP was based upon the felony possession charge, while the enhancement of his felony escape sentence was based upon his three prior felony convictions. State v. Sanchez , 2019-NMCA-006, cert. denied.
‹ Prev All New Mexico sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.