State Supreme Court Upholds sentence for man convicted of killing El Rancho family
Aug. 2—The New Mexico Supreme Court has affirmed the sentence of a Northern New Mexico man sent to prison for 25 years after being convicted of killing three members of an El Rancho family in an attack with a pick ax-like hand tool when he was a teen.
Nicholas Ortiz was convicted in December 2016 in the deaths of Lloyd Ortiz, 55, his wife Dixie Ortiz, 53, and their son Steven Ortiz, 21, whose bodies were discovered in their home on Father's Day 2011.
Nicholas Ortiz and the slain family were not related but had been close, according to authorities.
Public defender Stephen Taylor argued prior to Nicholas Ortiz's sentencing that he should be given an "amenability hearing," afforded to juvenile defendants, to determine how likely it is he could be rehabilitated and whether he should be sentenced as an adult.
The state countered that such hearings are only guaranteed to defendants between the ages of 14 and 18 convicted of second-degree murder or lesser crimes, or defendants 14 and younger who commit first-degree murder. Ortiz was 16 at the time of the crime and was convicted of felony first-degree murder.
Felony murder — the crime of killing someone while committing another felony, in Ortiz's case burglary — does not require prosecutors to prove premeditation, which also is true in cases of second-degree murder. Defendants his age who are convicted of second-degree murder are guaranteed an amenability hearing.
State District Judge Francis J. Mathew held a hearing on the issue but adjourned the proceeding without making a ruling. During the hearing, he had a tense exchange with Taylor after refusing to allow a key witness from Chicago, whose flight was canceled due to weather, testify by phone.
The Public Defender's Office appealed Ortiz's sentence, arguing that denying him an amenability hearing violated his rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and to have equal protection under the law.
The Supreme Court found, however, the sentencing procedure applied to Ortiz did not violate his rights.
The justices concluded a "rational basis exists for the Legislature's decision to establish the separate categories that govern" cases involving juvenile offenders.
"Reviewing juvenile sentencing procedures for consistency with our society's evolving standards of decency is a laudable endeavor. However, as in this case, such matters of public policy are best addressed by the Legislature," Justice David K. Thomson wrote in an opinion published Monday. Justices Michael E. Vigil, Barbara J. Vigil and C. Shannon Bacon concurred.
