::::::::
Back in August of this year a friend of mine asked me to write
Attorney General Gary King about her concerns for her friend
"Wally". She had been maintaining a prison ministry for a while, which
wasn't particularly my cup of tea but her choice of interest.
She showed me some papers.It appeared that about 1981, "Wally" was in the darkest part of life--convicted in Grant Grant County, and given
a "life sentence." He is currently in Estancia.
From the parole eligibility sheet at the time (1982) as "Wally" was assigned a date of February, 2007 as the first eligibility for parole.That conformed to the contemporaneous opinion that 25 years would be adequate for a life sentence parole review. In 1986 the Attorney General issued an opinion that defined an adequate life sentence would be 30 years before eligibility for parole would be. As the eligibility was
redefined, the date of February 2007 was adjusted to 2011 in Wally's
record.
After some thought, I wrote Attorney General King directly as to his "opinion" on the eligibility question. I noted the fact of eligibility for parole at 25 years would be pertain to a limited number of persons. These would be persons convicted to life sentences prior to 1986 and had a redefined date to 30 years. Wally was one and there are probably a few others.
Without detailed reference of law, I considered the "redefinition" a fundamental breach of Wally's equal protection. It is difficult to explain fully, but while Wally was not "constitutional" in the commission of his crime, the
administration of justice must maintain constitutional process and
integrity. Shifting a date twenty years in the future the for parole
eligibility is not due process nor constitutional. It usurps in an
arbitrary manner the sentencing process-- applying one meaning one
day and then another meaning on a different day. Had Wally been
convicted in 1986 or thereafter when a life sentence means
eligibility in 30 years, I would have not questioned it.
What I was not speaking of was that Wally be automatically be set free. I
didn't attempt to reexamine what happened back then. What I strictly
presented was that he was "due" a trial right. In light of the
Febraury 2007 date, I suggested the matter could be "corrected or
cured' by assembling a parole hearing board and proceeding to review
upon the Wally's current character, facts of the case, concerns of
victim's familiy and friends, and addresses of those who know Wally.
The Board after hearing would then make its decision on those facts.
What I got back was alarming.First of all, it was five months in
response. Second, excepting for the reference "your letter of August
28,2007", I wouldn't have known what the letter made reference of.
It simply provided a rhetoric which neither addressed the central
question nor indicated an Attorney General office that was
interested in due process rights. The words, written by AAG Zachary
Schandler, indicate a continued stonewall, "deflect and deny" with an
obscuring cloud that is less than honest govenment. The duties are
more than derived as "authorized by statute to provide legal advice
to members of the state legislature, elected or appointed state
official and district attorneys." The oath of office extends to
preserve the constitutional integrity of the State and its
actions. That is especially so in matters which deal with individual
liberty.
Twenty five years was defined as a lifetime in 1982. It certainly
seems a lifetime ago for me. Ronald Reagan was President. New Mexico
was initiating its third Congressional District with a young Bill
Richardson at its helm. Attorney General Jeff Bingaman was setting into his
quest for the US Senate. And somewhere in Grant County there is a
terrible tale of which we have no facts--but know from the results it
is a devil's tale.
Not the kind of thing we want to think of. But the kind of thing
that Attorney Generals and District Attorneys should consider,:Is the
State acting in a manner contrary to constitutional integrity? And if
so, can the institutional deviation be cured so to promote
Constitutional integrity. Those are central questions that should be
addressed as part of the duties of the oath...to act absent
prejudice upon any person or party.
Prior to February 2007, the question of a parole review for Wally was "moot". It did not exist legally because "25 years had not past". In February, the issue blossomed, just as the month before the term of Attorney General King came into being. In August, the issue was ripe review. The letter was drafted and received. Now in response, there is overdue and obfuscication. It is unacceptable that the general issue of
constitutional integrity be demoted with such arrogance .
The inquiry was sent to the right office, at the right time, and the right manner. It should be addressed as the rising occurence of events and not be denied.
