## Facts

- Colin Gonzales was 14 at the time of a burglary and shooting spree that culminated in a homicide.
- Gonzales and an accomplice committed multiple residential burglaries and vandalism, stole firearms, and shot a dog tied in a yard.
- During a burglary, Gonzales shot the victim in the chest with a stolen .30-30 rifle; the accomplice then shot the victim in the head.
- The victim’s wife was threatened and robbed; as she fled with neighbors, the boys fired numerous shots toward them, injuring a neighbor with a shot tied to the .30-30 rifle.
- Gonzales later pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, aggravated burglary, aggravated battery, and two counts of aggravated assault.
- Gonzales was prosecuted as a “youthful offender,” and the State sought an adult sentence under NMSA 1978, § 32A-2-20(A).
- At an amenability hearing, Gonzales presented multiple witnesses (including experts) who testified he had mental disorders and was amenable to psychiatric treatment.
- The district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Gonzales was not amenable to treatment as a child and not eligible for institutional commitment, and imposed a 22-year adult sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether Apprendi requires a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that a youthful offender is not amenable to juvenile treatment and not eligible for institutional commitment before an adult sentence may be imposed.
2. Whether the New Mexico Constitution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt (rather than clear and convincing evidence) for the non-amenability and non-commitment findings that permit adult sentencing.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the district court’s findings of non-amenability and ineligibility for institutional commitment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the 22-year adult sentence.
- Apprendi did not apply to the amenability and commitment determinations made under § 32A-2-20.
- The New Mexico Constitution did not require a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden for those determinations; the statutory clear-and-convincing standard was sufficient.
- Substantial evidence supported the district court’s findings that Gonzales was not amenable to treatment as a child and was not eligible for institutional commitment.

## Legal Principles

- Findings that determine whether a youthful offender receives a juvenile disposition or an adult sentence under § 32A-2-20 are treated as dispositional/sentencing determinations, not offense elements requiring jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt under Apprendi.
- The legislature may require proof by clear and convincing evidence for amenability and commitment determinations in youthful-offender proceedings, consistent with state due process and jury-trial protections.
- On appeal, the trial court’s § 32A-2-20 findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and the trial court may weigh expert testimony against the offense conduct and other record evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an adult sentence for a 14-year-old youthful offender, holding that Apprendi did not mandate jury fact-finding beyond a reasonable doubt for amenability-related determinations, that clear and convincing evidence satisfied state constitutional requirements, and that the record supported the trial court’s non-amenability and non-commitment findings.


State v. Gonzales, 130 N.M. 341, 24 P.3d 776 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001)