New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center

Quality of the Administrative Office of the Courts’ Disposition and Sentencing Data

Prepared by: Kristine Denman Callie Dorsey

Formatting and editing support: Ashleigh Maus Graham White

Research support: Mariah Simplicio Joel Robinson Vaughn Fortier Shultz Drew Medaris Elizabeth Sabbath Jenna Dole

February 2020

This project was supported by Grant # 2017-BJ-CX-K018 from the State Justice Statistics program. The State Justice Statistics program is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice. Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Administrative Office of the Courts for their willingness to provide these data to us and for their participation in this project. We would also like to thank the New Mexico Sentencing Commission (NMSC) who stores copies of the data used in this report, and provided the data directly to us. Both Linda Freeman, Executive Director for the NMSC, and Dr. Noah Painter-Davis provided valuable comments as we drafted this report. We appreciate their feedback. Finally, we would like to thank the Bureau of Justice Statistics for providing the funding for this study through their State Justice Statistics Program.

i

Executive Summary Introduction The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is the principal source for criminal case disposition and sentencing information in New Mexico. Although the primary users of agency-created data are typically those within the agency, others may also access the data, including researchers. Unlike intra-agency users who typically interact with the data on an individual case level, researchers look at the raw underlying data either line-by-line or aggregate the data for analysis. Research results generated from these data can be used to measure criminal justice performance, assess reforms, and inform policy. However, the quality of these data can vary over time, by jurisdiction, and by the specific data fields. The current study evaluates the quality of the AOC’s disposition and sentencing data. We are undertaking this assessment both to provide feedback to the AOC regarding the strengths and limitations of the data, but also to help secondary users like us better understand the data in order to ensure that the data are used responsibly to inform research and policy. In this study we focus on the completeness, validity, uniqueness/duplication, consistency, and accuracy of both disposition and sentencing data.1

Key strengths of AOC data  Completeness was very high. o Most cases (92%) with a conviction had a sentence populated. o Most cases (89%) with a conditional discharge had a sentence populated. o Most cases (81%) with a deferred sentence had the amount populated. o Nearly all dispositions were populated, though this is likely an artifact of the parameters of the data pull.  Face validity was high for disposition types as well as sentences associated with most disposition types. o All of the disposition types appeared reasonable. o Less than 1% of cases with outright dismissals or acquittals of all charges had a sentence.  Duplication of data was low. o Approximately 1% of charges were duplicated. o Most commonly, duplications were the result of disparate data in one of seven categories and likely do not originate with the AOC; rather, duplication was due primarily to the appending process the NMSC uses as they receive updated data.  Accuracy of disposition data among selected cases was high. o Approximately 5% of cases had an erroneous disposition. o When erroneous, it most often involved a conditional discharge or deferral recorded as guilty/no contest or conviction.

Key limitations of AOC data  Completeness of amended or updated sentences may be limited. o Updated sentences may not be applied to all charges in a case. While this is likely reasonable for the AOC, it is something secondary data users need to be aware of.  Accuracy of sentence information among selected cases lower than may be expected.

1 Appendix E includes a glossary of key terms used throughout this report.

ii

o Accuracy of total confinement sentence was lower than the accuracy of total probation sentences (65% accuracy for total confinement, 80% accuracy for total probation). . Regardless of sentence type (confinement or probation), the most common errors were omissions.  Total confinement was often missing presentence confinement credit or suspensions. o In some cases, court clerks did populate the field “suspend all,” but due to an apparent glitch, this was not subtracted from the total sentence. This is expected to be remedied in the next version of Odyssey.  Total probation was most often erroneous because it was not populated, though in some cases it may be that the sentence was not yet decided when the data were pulled by AOC.  Consistency varies. o Judgement and Sentence (J&S) documentation differs across judicial districts. . Some districts write the J&S in narrative format, some use a form to summarize each of the sentence components, and some write out each portion in a narrative and provide a summary at the end. o Conditional discharges are not always recorded as a disposition. o Sentences are recorded in varying ways. . By charge, by case recorded under a single charge, or by case recorded under all charges with a sentence.  This causes issues when the sentence is recorded by each charge as it is not clear whether to sum the sentences, calculate the longest sentence, or some combination of the two. While there are flags to indicate if the sentence is concurrent/consecutive we found that 35% of the sample had some issue with the flags. Even when there is no issue the flags could refer to another charge in the case or another case altogether. . The most common recording method varies by sentence type (confinement versus probation). . The method of recording sentences varies by judicial district and over time. . A little less than half of conditional discharges and deferred sentences that are dismissed have a sentence recorded. . Credits and suspensions are sometimes, but not always, accounted for in the total sentence.

Suggestions for improvement  Standardize J&S sentence summaries. o While each judicial district should have the ability to determine how they would like to record sentence information in the J&S, adopting a standard summary format to ensure that all parties receiving the data fully understand the judge’s intent would be beneficial. o This summary should include the total sentence before and after suspensions, credits, and enhancements, and specify each of those credits and enhancement amounts. It

iii

should also clearly state whether presentence confinement and probation credits will be applied to the incarceration term or probation term.  One of the key challenges with using these data is that the sentence can be recorded in a variety of ways. One way to remedy this would be to have a set of fields that summarizes the entire sentence in a case or set of concurrent cases. However, our understanding is that the software developer cannot add that. In the absence of this fix, we recommend the following: o If the sentence reflects the total sentence in the case, it should be entered under a single charge to avoid confusion. This would require that the J&S documents include a summary sentence for a given case or combination of cases. o There are currently flags to indicate whether the charges are concurrent of consecutive. If feasible, we suggest exploring whether values could be added to these fields that would clarify how the sentence can be calculated. For example, it may be helpful to include a value “concurrent to another case” or “concurrent to another charge.”  Create or update data entry guide. o It is unclear whether there is a comprehensive data entry guide, as when asked, we received documentation of some components of the system, but not a comprehensive guide. If not available, one should be created. This would help to ensure consistency with data entry across judicial districts. o Review existing documentation or create documentation to ensure that it clearly explains how particular components are to be entered in those areas where we found inconsistencies (e.g., whether PSC was recorded). o Require that conditional discharges be entered as dispositions.  Offer data entry guides to secondary data users. o A data entry guide could help secondary users to better understand the data since a codebook is not available.  Consider expanding disposition categories available in Odyssey, if possible. o While not a primary focus of this study, we did find a handful of lower court review (LR) cases, all of which involved decisions about pretrial release. The current disposition categories reflect options for a criminal case. Given that New Mexico passed an amendment to reform bail practices, it would be beneficial to include options related to the disposition of these cases (e.g., pretrial release granted or not). Including a disposition appropriate to these cases could help assess the implementation of bail reform.

iv

Introduction Criminal justice agencies collect and maintain administrative data. One such agency is the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The AOC creates and retains disposition and sentencing data in New Mexico. The AOC has a comprehensive data system (Odyssey) for the recording of court case information. Court clerks are responsible for entering the data into the system, typically within a short time after each event in the case. Clerks may record the disposition and sentence (if applicable) for each charge or for the case overall.

Although the primary users of agency-created data are typically those within the agency, others may also access the data. In the case of court data, the public may query the data on a case-by-case basis. Other secondary users, such as researchers, may also access the data. Among other purposes, researchers may use the data to measure criminal justice performance, assess reforms, and inform policy. Moreover, all users of the data, particularly those who access underlying data rather than interact with user-friendly interfaces, need to understand the structure and quality of the data. Importantly, New Mexico is in the process of creating a criminal justice data-sharing network. Those working on integrating these data could benefit from understanding the quality and structure of data. The quality of these data can vary over time, by jurisdiction, and by the specific data fields. Given the implications that these data can have, it is imperative to assess the quality and completeness of the administrative data we, and others, access to conduct research and make policy recommendations.

Like any other data system, there are some errors. One problem we found when working on a study of pretrial detention (Denman, 2016) was that the sentence information for individual charges was sometimes inaccurate. However, we did not conduct a formal assessment to determine whether the errors found were atypical anomalies or indicative of a systemic problem. The AOC’s disposition data, though, appears to be more reliable. We have used these data to examine variations in court dispositions and the AOC uses the disposition data to construct their performance measures. Despite this, it is possible that there are errors with these data that have gone undetected.

The current study seeks to assess the quality of the AOC’s disposition and sentencing data. We are undertaking this assessment in order to provide feedback to the AOC on current strengths of the data and potential areas for improvement. We are also undertaking this assessment in order to help secondary users of the data better understand the data, their limitations, their structure, and how to responsibly use them to inform research and policy. This assessment will examine the extent to which the data are populated and reliable for both our uses and those of the AOC and other organizations. As the primary source of disposition and sentencing data in New Mexico, it is critical to assess the quality of this data.

Sample The New Mexico Sentencing Commission (NMSC) provided the data for this study with consent from the AOC. The data include all district court cases flagged as having a disposition between 2012 and 2016.2 The AOC typically provides these datasets to the NMSC annually. The AOC stores the data in relational

2 We focus on District Court cases since they are courts of record, whereas Magistrate Courts are not. Part of the assessment requires accessing original documents which are only required for cases tried in District Court.

1 tables that the NMSC then uploads into their data warehouse. NMSC staff append new data to existing data. Thus, if any data from earlier data pulls are updated or corrected, the NMSC will have both versions. In addition to the original variables from the AOC, NMSC adds some variables to standardize portions of the data (e.g., collapsing disposition type into a dichotomous variable to indicate whether a charge results in a conviction).

It is important to emphasize that the courts create the data for a specific purpose, to record case events and outcomes, and not for research. Thus, the way we assess the quality of the data may differ somewhat from the way primary users would assess the data. Moreover, we are examining the data as we receive and use it: line by line. There are multiple lines of data for each case. Each line represents a charge in the case. It includes details about the charge (statute, description, number), the disposition for that charge, the sentence (if applicable), and the sentencing date. If the disposition changes (e.g., the sentence is amended), a new line of data with the charge, the new disposition, new sentence, and dates associated with that event and the sentence will appear in the data. In addition, each line includes personal identifiers and demographics.

The sentence data are stored in multiple fields. The variables we received include the confinement term sentence (the sentence prior to any enhancements, suspensions, or credits), suspensions, credits, and total confinement sentence (the amount after adjustments are made to the basic judge-ordered sentence), and flags indicating whether the sentences are to be served consecutively or concurrently. We also received term probation sentence, credits, and total probation sentence. The AOC records all sentence variables, credits, and suspensions in separate fields for days, months, and years. There is also a field that indicates whether an entire confinement term is suspended, and we received a variable that indicates whether the confinement term is a life sentence.

There is not a data dictionary available due to the proprietary nature of the AOC data system. Therefore, it is likely that we did not receive other variables that may have been useful. Two variables we know are available but did not receive include enhancements (e.g., additional time added to the basic sentence for habitual offender) and a flag indicating that the total sentence was a life term. However, we believe we had the key variables needed for this assessment. A full description of the variables included in the dataset and the tables they originate from is available in Appendix A, Table A.1.

Methods For this project, we focused on assessing the quality of the disposition and sentencing data in the AOC dataset. Using descriptive and bivariate statistics, we explored the following five measures:

1. How complete is the information? 2. How valid is the information? 3. To what extent is there duplication of records? 4. How accurate are the records? 5. How consistent is the information?

We assessed the completeness, validity, and duplication using all available cases in AOC’s automated data. We selected cases from a stratified sample to assess accuracy and consistency. To assess the data for completeness, we calculated the proportion of cases and charges disposed with missing data on our key variables. Staff completed this in two steps. First, we assessed whether any disposition data was

2 missing. Next, we examined whether any sentence information was missing overall and by disposition at both the charge and case level. The measure for sentence completeness overlaps with the validity assessment.

Validity assessments focus on expected values. For the assessment of dispositions, we explored whether any disposition codes appeared unreasonable. Further, we examined how often the courts used each code. To assess sentence validity, we compared the proportion of charges with a sentence populated by the disposition type. For example, if any charge resulted in a conviction, we would expect there would be some sentence. If there is no sentence, we consider the data missing. Conversely, if a case had a sentence but the disposition indicated that none of the charges resulted in a conviction, we determined that to be invalid.

We determined duplication by checking whether there were multiple lines of data for charges with the same court case number, event date, charge ID, sentence ID, and sentence date. If we found more than one line of data given these criteria, we considered the line of data a duplicate.

A key component of this study was the assessment of accuracy of the data. In order to assess accuracy, we compared the automated data to the hardcopy J&S documents for each case in our sample. We selected a stratified random sample of 345 cases to assess disposition and sentencing data from the AOC. The strata include:

1. Cases that likely have errors. 2. Among remaining cases, those with charges for aggravated assault/domestic violence. 3. All other cases remaining.

Since we expected that errors would be more likely to occur in cases that were especially complex and where the sentence information appeared to be erroneous, we identified those cases that included an above average number of charges, those with very long sentences, and those that had a disposition but no sentencing information. We chose to include these as a stratum to ensure that we detected cases that were likely to have errors. We chose the second stratum because we intend to complete a study comparing individuals whose charges involve assault with and without a domestic violence component. Within each stratum of cases, we randomly selected 115 from district court. Note that this method does not result in an assessment of the proportion of cases overall with accurate information. Instead, we are assessing accuracy within this stratified random sample.

We began with 345 cases; 230 of these cases involved multiple sentence events. This occurs when the court amends a sentence due to an error or appeal, or because the individual violates the terms of their probation and the court imposes a new sentence due to that violation. We checked all the dispositions and sentences for these cases, resulting in a total of 657 unique disposition/sentence events with 2,101 charges.3

We compared the automated data from the AOC to Judgment and Sentencing (J&S) documents in the online court database (Odyssey). The J&S document is a legal document, typically prepared and submitted by the district attorney, signed by the judge, and approved by the defense attorney. As such, it should be the most accurate source of disposition and sentencing information. The J&S provides

3 Appendix D provides an illustration of the structure of a case, sample language from a Judgment and Sentence document, and the corresponding data in the AOC’s automated dataset.

3 details on each charge, the disposition for each charge, the sentence for each charge, and whether the sentence for each charge is consecutive or concurrent. It also summarizes the sentence, and documents enhancements, credits, and suspensions.

We checked whether the disposition and sentence for each charge was correct in the automated data, and whether the overall disposition and sentence for the case was correct. As described above, the sentencing data are included in multiple variables reflecting court-ordered confinement and probation (months, days, years), any credits and suspensions that are allowed, and the ultimate confinement and/or probation ordered after those credits and suspensions are considered. Thus, in order to assess the quality of the sentencing data, we examined each of these variables. The analysis, though, focuses on total confinement and probation as these are the crux of the sentence. As noted previously, the NMSC does not have a data dictionary for these data. Thus, they pulled some data, such as suspensions, from different tables. This assessment allowed us to explore which of these tables has the most complete and accurate information. Finally, we assessed whether the accuracy varies by jurisdiction and by year. This allowed us to calculate measures of consistency across jurisdictions and over time. When notable, we also highlight differences by other measures, such as completeness.

Results Completeness and validity For the completeness and validity measures, we assessed all cases in our dataset that were disposed between 2012 and 2016. We examine two key pieces of information: dispositions and sentences. Sentences reviewed here include judge-ordered confinement and probation terms. It does not include fines/fees. We begin by describing the completeness and validity of disposition data, followed by sentence data. Completeness of dispositions We first examined whether each charge had a disposition populated. For this assessment, we examined the data at the case level by court case number, event date, and sentence date. We found that only .09% (n=11) of the district court cases have missing dispositions, for a total of 27 charges with missing dispositions within those 11 cases. In 10 of these cases, the disposition for all the charges were missing. The number of cases without a disposition in this data, then, is very small.

However, we discovered that not all cases had the expected number of charges. In order to determine the extent of the disparity, we summed the charges on a given event (disposition) and sentence date and compared that to the maximum charge number. If these were the same, then we assumed all charges were accounted for; if not, we assumed there were some charges missing.

At the case level, about 2% (n=1,316) of district court cases have a different number of charges than expected. Just 1% (n=349) differ in the magistrate court data. The most common reason we did not have all of the charges was that a sentence was amended, and it applied only to one charge. Thus, the other charges did not get updated. In a few cases, charges were disposed on different dates. Since we define a distinct case event as one that involves the same court case number, event date, and sentence date, charges with amended sentences or sentenced on a different date would be grouped differently.

4

Validity of disposition data We assessed the face validity of the AOC disposition data by examining the distribution of dispositions in the district court data to locate any outliers. The NMSC recodes the disposition values into categories. We reproduced just the categories here, but the details are available in Appendix A, Table A.2. For this analysis, we separated conditional discharges and deferrals that were dismissed from those pending and granted. We did so because once dismissed, these should not have a sentence.

Dismissals are by far the largest disposition category, comprising just under 55% of all cases. Convictions represent the second largest category of disposition with just over 29%. These patterns reflect prosecutorial charging strategies. Prosecutors tend to apply all relevant charges to the case, even if the evidence may seem tenuous at the outset of the court proceedings. Over the course of the case, some charges do not live up to evidentiary standards and are dismissed. The remaining charges within a case often lead to some form of conviction. The other major disposition categories occupy a middle-ground between dismissals and convictions. Notably, different stages of conditional discharges (6% were active, 1% have already been dismissed) as well as different stages of deferments (4% were active, 1% already dismissed) collectively represent divergent paths away from an outright conviction. Finally, several disposition categories amount to less than one percent of cases.

At face value, the disposition categories appear reasonable. However, some, like “discharged” are rarely used. Discharged indicates that the defendant is likely innocent and appears to be used when the charges are dismissed with prejudice, so the case cannot be tried again. The AOC data currently has 20 varieties of dismissed dispositions. We expect that this variable uses a dropdown menu, but without a data dictionary, we cannot be certain whether each of these are valid codes.

Table 1. Dispositions of charges Disposition Category Percent N Acquitted 1% 2,646 Admission <1% 164 Conditional 1% 3,559 Discharge Dismissed Conditional 6% 15,053 Discharge Consent Decree <1% 15 Consolidated <1% 82 Convicted 29% 74,039 Deferred 4% 10,267 Deferred Dismissed 1% 3,013 Delinquent <1% 17 Adjudication Discharged <1% 34 Dismissed 55% 138,033 Other <1% 462 Remand 2% 4,726 Transferred <1% 115 Unavailable <1% 108 Missing <1% 27 Total 100% 252,360

5

Most disposition categories consist of multiple disposition types. On the surface, none of the disposition types appeared to be invalid, though there was some inconsistency with recording the information. For example, a very small proportion of dispositions began with the letters “CRB” followed by the disposition type. When staff examined the disposition codes by year (Appendix A, Table A.3) we found that the data included CRB codes during and before 2012 only. Furthermore, only about half of the judicial districts used these codes (Appendix A, Table A.4). Likewise, some disposition types are rarely used. For example, one district used the disposition type “CRJ: DISMISS BY PROS/MISTRIAL” only twice , and a disposition type labeled “GUILTY PLEA/NOLO CONTENDERE” that was used only once. The “CRB” codes appear to be obsolete, and the other, rarely used codes, appear to have been entered in error.

Importantly, in the data we reviewed, a handful of cases (n=20) involved a review of decisions made by the lower court (cases designated with “LR”). All of these cases involved a review of pretrial release conditions. The available dispositions reflect the disposition of criminal charges, not decisions regarding an appeal of release conditions. In one case, for example, the recorded disposition was “Dismissed by Prosecutor/Nolle Prosequi” but the defense counsel dismissed the motion. These cases should not have criminal dispositions and indeed, very few of these types of cases appeared with dispositions. Completeness and validity of sentence data The next portion of the data assessment explores the completeness of the sentence data. We began by examining the proportion of charges with sentence data populated. Most charges do not have any sentence information (Appendix A, Table A.1, variables from court confinement and court probation tables). However, as observed above, just 30% of charges include a disposition of “convicted.” Thus, we explored sentence by disposition type. Since the sentence data are recorded in different ways (by case, by charge, or by case but recorded under each charge) we aggregated the data to the case level to determine if cases with a conviction included a sentence on any line of data. Besides completeness, this provides a measure of validity as we would not expect cases without any convictions to have a sentence.

At the case level, convicted dispositions have a sentence roughly 92% of the time.4 While 92% is a relatively high degree of completeness, we expected this to be higher since a sentence is a typical component of any conviction. Further investigation reveals that most of the cases that do not have a sentence also do not have a sentence date (65% of convictions without a sentence, see last column of Table 4 below), which may indicate the sentence was still pending at the time the data were pulled. Alternatively, some portion of those cases may have resulted in a fine or some other non- confinement/non-probation sentence, but some are likely erroneously missing the sentence information. The remaining 35% of cases with a conviction did have a sentence date.

Cases resulting in a deferred sentence or conditional discharge included sentence information less often (89% and 81% of cases, respectively). We would expect all of these cases to have a sentence. A mandatory component of a deferred sentence is “supervised or unsupervised probation for all or some portion of the deferral period” (New Mexico Criminal Procedures Manual, 121). Likewise, orders of conditional discharge require the defendant to complete a period of probation before charges are

4 See Appendix A, Table A.5 for details about which fields were populated in cases with a conviction.

6 dismissed (New Mexico Criminal Procedures Manual, 121). Like cases with an outright conviction, most (70%) also did not have a sentence date.

We would not expect charges that are dismissed to include a sentence. This includes cases that initially began as a deferral or conditional discharge as well as those dismissed at the outset. Despite this, we found that approximately 44% of dismissed deferrals and conditional discharges included a sentence. Less than 1% of non-convictions (dismissed and acquittals) list a sentence. We would not expect sentences when the charge is unsubstantiated. As such, the handful of non-convictions that do list sentences are suspect.

Table 2. Cases with sentence by disposition type Disposition Type % of Cases with a Total N % of Cases % of Cases Sentence Without a Without a Sentence That Sentence That Do Have a Sentence Not Have a Date Sentence Date Convicted 92% 44,673 35% 65% Conditional 89% 9,050 30% 70% Discharge Deferred 81% 6,093 30% 70% Conditional 44% 2,292 9% 91% Discharge Dismissed Deferred 44% 1,834 14% 86% Dismissed Dismissed <1% 45,894 <1% >99% Acquitted <1% 1,027 <1% >99% Other 6% 2,975 4% 96% No Disposition 36% 11 <1% 100% Total 49% 112,922 4% >99%

In order to get a sense of whether sentence completeness varies over time and by judicial district, we examine the proportion of cases with a conviction that did not have a sentence. As one might expect, the proportion of cases with a conviction that did not have a sentence increased in more recent years, from 2013 to 2016. However, the greatest proportion with missing data occurred in 2012 (Appendix A, Table A.6). This may be related to the implementation of the Odyssey system, which came online in 2011.

In addition, the proportion of cases with a conviction but without a sentence varies by judicial district (Appendix A, Table A.7). The proportion missing a sentence ranged from a low of 3% in several judicial districts to a high of 16% in the 2nd judicial district. While this is largely due to missing sentence dates (no sentence information populated at all), the proportion of cases with a conviction and missing a sentence date was slightly lower in the 2nd judicial district than in the 12th district, which had the second highest rate of missing sentence information.

7

Duplication of information We assessed duplication at the charge level. There are two potential sources of duplication. First, the AOC may duplicate information by entering the same information multiple times. Second, the NMSC from whom we receive the data, may be the source of duplicated data. The NMSC receives updated data from the AOC on a regular basis. When the NMSC receives new data from the AOC, they append the new data to the existing data. If the AOC edits the data (e.g., adding a middle name or making some other correction to existing data), the NMSC will have two lines of data for the same charge/same date with differing personal information, leading to duplication.

We considered charges duplicates if they had the same court case number, event date, charge ID, sentence ID, and sentence date. Each line of data in the dataset includes this information, along with disposition, sentence, personal identifiers, and charge descriptions. Thus, if there were more than one line of data for the same charge on the same disposition and sentence date, this would indicate that there was some different information in one or more of the other fields of data causing the duplication.

Of the 247,969 lines of data we examined, we found 3,578 charges (1.4%) duplicated at least once. Most of these charges (89%) are duplicated once, though a handful are duplicated up to six times. These results are detailed in the table below.

Table 3. Number of duplicated charges Lines of Duplication Charges % of duplications 2 3,178 89% 3 3 <1% 4 389 11% 6 8 <1% N of duplications 3,578 Total N 252,360 1.4%

Upon further exploration of the duplicated data, we found that only 2% of duplicated charges were true duplicates with all of the data points in each field (beyond the variables used to define duplicates) duplicated. For the remaining charges, one or more variables included data values that differed. Therefore, the cause of the duplication was mismatched information (e.g., different middle names). We assessed the source of the discrepancy for these remaining charges. We grouped differences into seven categories: charge information (e.g., description of offense, statute cited); personal identifiers (first, middle, last name, and/or date of birth); personal attribute (race, ethnicity, and/or gender); disposition; sentence (confinement term, suspensions, credits, and total confinement); probation (probation term, probation credits, and total probation); and other (party identification number). Differences include both different populated information as well as information missing in one line of data, but populated in another. Most charges had a single source of discrepant information (85%), but some have different information in multiple categories.

8

Table 4. Reason for duplicated data Reason for duplication N % All values duplicated 76 2% Single source of difference 3,048 85% Multiple sources of differences 443 13% Total 3,578 100%

The most common source of duplicated data with discrepant information was the labeling of the charge information. In 61% of all duplicated charges, the description of the offense or statute differs even though the charge id is the same. Among these, 43% (n=1,531) had the same charge id with different statutes listed. For example, there may be two lines of data for the same charge because one has more specific information about the statute than the other (example 30-22-14 vs. 30-22-14(B)). Alternatively, both lines of data may have the same two statutes listed but in a different order (example: 30-4-3 & 31- 18-15 vs. 31-18-15 & 30-4-3). In some instances, one line of data has the statute related to the charge and the other case has the statute related to the charge and a statute related to sentencing (example: 30-15-1 vs. 30-15-1 & 31-18-15). An informal assessment of the data indicates that most of the duplicated charges have at least one matching statute. The other sources of difference in this category are the charge description and the offense degree.

The next most common source of duplications was due to differences with the personal identifiers (first, middle, or last name, and/or date of birth). In total, 27% (n=948) of charges with duplications have different personal identifiers. In other words, for example, all of the information on one line of data is the same as the next line of data, but the names are spelled differently on each line. The next most common source of duplication (15%, n=520) was differences in personal attributes.

Some (9% n=329) charges have different disposition information for the same charge on the same event and sentence date. Very few charges (<1% combined) have different information relating to the sentence or probation length. Finally, 8% (n=281) of charges have different information entered for two party ID’s and/or an offense history ID. These results are summarized in Table 5 below.5

Table 5. Non-mutually exclusive categories of difference in duplicated charges Category N % Charge 2,179 61% Personal Identifier 948 27% Personal Attribute 520 15% Disposition 329 9% Other 281 8% Probation 16 <1% Sentence 4 <1%

5 Additional details about the source of duplication are available in Appendix A, Table A.8 .

9

Overall, then, the rate of duplication is very low. Furthermore, it is primarily due to the procedures the NMSC uses when they receive the data (appending data) rather than the AOC data itself. Accuracy of Information In this section and the next, we include only a subset of cases. We identified a stratified random sample of 345 cases and compared the automated data to the J&S documents. Since some cases include more than one sentence (e.g., amended sentences or probation revocations), we included all distinct disposition and sentencing events, resulting in 656 distinct events with 2,101 charges. Like the previous sections, we examine the accuracy of both the disposition data and the sentence data. When appropriate, we report the results both by charge and by case since some cases may have multiple charges while others have only one. Accuracy of disposition data Table 6 shows disposition types as listed in the AOC data by disposition type described in the J&S documents. The disposition was typically recorded correctly. Of all charges in the sample, just 4% (n=82) had an erroneous disposition and 5% of events in cases (n=35) had one or more erroneous dispositions. The most common difference was when the charge resulted in a conditional discharge or deferred sentence, but the disposition type recorded was a guilty plea, no contest, or guilty plea/conviction. This accounts for 77% (n=63) of the discrepant charges (see the first two columns in Table 6).

The prosecutor or courts dismissed 12 cases, but the recorded disposition was deferred, conditional discharge, or conditional discharge dismissed as displayed in the third column in Table 6 below. These are not cases where the charge originally resulted in a conditional discharge that the courts later dismissed. Rather, the prosecutor or judge dismissed the charges altogether. In all of these cases, there was at least one other charge in the case that resulted in a conviction.

In five cases, we found charges that should have been recorded as convicted (guilty plea), but the disposition recorded in the automated data was deferred (n=3), conditional discharge (n=1), or conditional discharge dismissed (n=1). The disposition of four of these charges changed from a pending conditional discharge or deferral to a conviction at a later date, but the disposition type did not change with the updated sentence date, accounting for the discrepancy. In one case, the earliest disposition was a conviction, but a later entry indicated a conditional discharge; the disposition of that charge did not change, so it is unclear why the disposition type was altered in the dataset.

We found one charge with a disposition of conditional discharge pending, but on the date in question, the judge dismissed the conditional discharge. Finally, after examining the J&S document, we found that one charge had not been addressed in the document but the disposition recorded in the automated data was a guilty plea. Other charges in that case did result in a guilty plea.

10

Table 6. Disposition type corrected (charge level) Correction type made Conditional Conditional Deferred Convicted Dismissed J&S N discharge Discharge does Dismissed not address this count Conditional 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 Discharge

Conditional 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Discharge Dismissed Deferred 0 0 0 3 10 0 13 Guilty No 37 0 18 0 1 0 56 contest Plea/No 3 0 5 0 1 1 10

Disposition recorded Conviction Total N 40 1 23 5 12 1 82

Consistency of Disposition To assess consistency of disposition data, we compared accuracy over time and by judicial district. As noted above, just 35 (5%) of cases had one or more charges with a corrected disposition. In general, this average was consistent over time except in 2012, where the proportion of corrected dispositions was notably higher. However, there were only 17 cases in the sample in 2012. Thus, the 2012 rate may be artificially inflated. Figure 1 summarizes these results below.

Figure 1. Disposition corrected by year Proportion of Dispositions Corrected by Year 30%

25%

20% 18%

15%

10%

6% 6% 4% 5% 5%

0% 2012 (n=17) 2013 (n=146) 2014 (n=208) 2015 (n=146) 2016 (n=140)

11

The accuracy of the dispositions varied widely by judicial district. Although only 12 cases originated from judicial district 8, one-third of the cases had erroneous dispositions. This was the highest proportion across jurisdictions. We did not detect any errors in five judicial districts. The proportion of erroneous dispositions ranged from 1% to 11% in the remaining districts. Figure 2 summarizes these results below.

Figure 2. Corrected dispositions by jurisdiction Proportion of Dispositions Corrected by Jurisdiction 50% 45% 40% 35% 33% 30% 25% 20%

15% 11% 9% 9% 10% 6% 4% 5% 5% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% District District District District District District District District District District District District District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 (n=50) (n=244) (n=106) (n=22) (n=73) (n=23) (n=5) (n=12) (n=21) (n=8) (n=29) (n=40) (n=24)

Recording of Sentences Next, we explore the accuracy of sentence information. One of the challenges we have had working with these data is related to how the courts record sentences. The sentence is sometimes recorded for each charge resulting in a conviction (i.e., the sentence ordered for that particular charge), or by case (total sentence). When listed by case, it may be listed once under a single charge (even when multiple charges result in a conviction) or repeated for each (convicted) charge in the case. When the sentence is listed under multiple charges, we typically do not know whether to sum the sentences or take the maximum since sentences can be served consecutively or concurrently. Two fields flag whether charges are concurrent or consecutive to others, but this may refer to another charge in the case or another case that already exists or is disposed at the same time.

How the sentence is recorded In order to help us understand the data better, we began by determining how court clerks typically record sentence (confinement and probation) by comparing the automated data to the information contained in the J&S document. Table 7 summarizes the results for the 447 charges with sentences associated with them. Some sentences are recorded by charge, but a portion of those have only a single charge resulting in a conviction. All sentences recorded by case had two or more charges resulting in a conviction. In the table below, we summarize how courts record sentences by number of charges and sentence type.

12

When there are multiple charges, the court most often records the confinement sentence by charge. In 45% of cases with multiple convicted charges, court clerks recorded the sentence associated with each charge. When clerks recorded the confinement time by case, they were slightly more likely to record it once under one of the charges (31%) rather than repeat it for each charge (23%).

Among cases with multiple charges, court clerks recorded probation sentences at the charge level less frequently than they did at the case level (24% vs. 76%). When recording the sentence by case, court clerks recorded the total probation term for each charge (46%) more often than recording it only one time (30%). It is perhaps not surprising that clerks would record the probation term at the case level more often as the J&S typically summarizes the probation term rather than separate it by charge. Conversely, the J&S document usually details the confinement sentences associated with each charge.

Overall, then, when there are two or more charges resulting in a conviction, regardless of the sentence type, the sentence listed is more likely to be specific to the case rather than the charge. However, sentences involving confinement are more often charge-specific. Court clerks were much more likely to record probation amounts at the case level, with only 24% of cases recorded at the charge level.

However, these trends vary by judicial district and year.6 Among cases with multiple charges, the proportion of cases with a sentence for each charge varies from a low of 0% in one district to 89% in another district. Most districts, though, have at least one case that has the sentence recorded for each charge. Conversely, one district recorded the total sentence once in nearly all cases (93%) checked while six of the judicial districts never did so. There were variations annually as well.

Table 7. Method of recording sentence by confinement or probation Confinement Probation How sentence is N % of those N % of those recorded with with multiple multiple charges charges Multiple Charge specific sentence 115 45% 55 24% charges Total sentence repeated for each 59 23% 105 46% charge Total sentence recorded on a single 79 31% 70 30% line/for only one charge Total multiple charges 257 230 Single charge Recorded once 129 111 No sentence Nothing recorded 65 106 Total N 447 3 447

Consecutive versus concurrent confinement sentences The challenge with sentences recorded by each charge is determining whether the total sentence for the case should be summed across charges (consecutive sentences), calculated based on the longest sentence(when concurrent), or some combination (when the judge orders some charges to be served concurrently and other charges consecutively). Based on our discussions with court staff, if the flag is

6 See Appendix A, Tables A.9 and A.10.

13 not populated, the user should assume the charges are consecutive. In order to assess this, we checked whether the flag for concurrent/consecutive was accurate.

Out of the 986 charges with a sentence, we identified 361 (35%) as having some problem with the concurrent/consecutive flag. Most frequently, this was because the court did not populate either flag. Following the courts advice, we assumed that cases without a flag were consecutive. However, cross checks with J&S reports indicated of the (N=163) cases without a flag, only 53% were actually consecutive, with 14 of those consecutive to another case only. The remainder should have had either concurrent to another charge in that case (n=105) or concurrent to charges in another case (n=10). The remaining 28 cases in this category should have had both concurrent and consecutive, indicating that charges within a case may have been concurrent or consecutive to each other and those charges were concurrent or consecutive to another case.

The remaining cases had some other inconsistency between concurrent and consecutive flags. Included in the table below are the number of charges to be served concurrent or consecutively to another case. In 18 cases, these were not erroneously flagged in the court data, but we note them here because the charges are concurrent/consecutive to another case, not other charges within the same case. These are in blue.

Table 8. Difference between recorded and corrected concurrent and consecutive flags Correction type made based on J&S documentation

one

Concurrent Consecutive Both Concurrent to another case Consecutive to another case Neither (only charge, one case) Total Nothing 105 149 28 10 14 --- 306 recorded Concurrent --- 8 3 9 1 1 22 Consecutive 6 --- 6 3 6 5 26

Recorded Both 2 2 --- 0 3 0 7 Total N 113 157 37 24 24 6 361

Confinement accuracy The sections that follow include an assessment of the accuracy of the sentence. We focus on “total” confinement and “total” probation ordered. “Total” confinement should include the amount of time the judge orders after accounting for any enhancements, suspensions, or credits. Similarly, “total” probation includes the amount of probation the defendant must serve after considering any credits awarded towards that sentence.

For this section, we limit the data to only those cases that had sentence information. Additionally, we omitted the additional lines in cases that had the total sentence repeated for each charge, so as not to inflate the number and proportion of corrections made. Therefore, the total number of number of cases included in this analysis changes from 657 to 447; in other words, 210 cases in our sample did not have a sentence. Note, too, that a “case” includes a unique sentencing event.

14

Typically, court clerks do not populate the confinement amount when the judge orders a conditional discharge or deferral. To be consistent, we did not alter that unless the confinement amount was populated and wrong (this only occurred in one case). In order to assist the reader, we have included examples of the types of errors we encountered in Appendix B. We reference these examples throughout the following sections.

Accuracy of Total Confinement Among cases with a sentence, most did not have any errors or omissions from the total confinement. Still, 35% of cases with a sentence (n=157, 24% of cases overall in the sample) had an error for one or more of the charges. This was most often due to missing presentence confinement credit (PSC) or, less often, suspensions (illustrated in Figure 3 below). However, we found many correct total confinement terms included one or both. Indeed, 46% of charges with a correct sentence amount included PSC and/or suspensions. Interestingly, a handful of charges had the wrong amount of PSC and/or suspensions recorded, but the total confinement amount was correct. It is unclear how this could occur, as the total sentence is calculated from each of the component parts (term sentence, enhancements, PSC, and suspensions). Moreover, in nine charges, the total confinement amount was correct, but the term amount was not and neither suspensions nor PSC were populated. This suggests that there are other fields used to record these values but were not in the dataset we received.

As illustrated in Figure 3, the most common reason for a discrepancy between the J&S document and the recorded sentence was that court clerks did not record the PSC (13%) or the suspensions (8%) and therefore the total confinement term did not include these credits (see Tables B.1 through B.3 in Appendix B for examples). Importantly, in an additional 7% of the cases, the court clerks did record the suspensions, but this was not reflected in the total confinement amount (see Table B.4 in Appendix B for an example). This occurred most often when the entire confinement term was suspended, as indicated with a “1” in the “suspend all” variable from the confinement table. In fact, when this variable was populated, the total confinement amount never reflected this suspension. In a handful of other cases, a portion or all of the confinement term was suspended and recorded in the years/months suspend variables in the confinement table but not removed from the total confinement. Typically, when populated here, these suspensions were subtracted from the total confinement so it is unclear why this would happen in just a handful of cases. Note that PSC was rarely populated in the fields we received, but when it was, it was correct.

In an additional 7% (n=33) of cases, the total confinement amount was not populated; in most of these cases (n=27), the term confinement amount (the amount before suspensions/credits, etc.) was not populated either.7 Thus, no confinement term was recorded when it should have been. However, in three of these cases, there is a separate entry associated with the same disposition date and the sentence information and the sentence date are populated. In other words, the sentence information was likely included in a more recent data dump for three cases. In two other cases, the total confinement was missing, but this was likely because we did not receive the variable reflecting a life sentence. It is likely that the confinement would have been recorded there since the term confinement was a life sentence.

7 The sentence date is also missing in 16 of these cases.

15

In a handful of cases (n=18), there were one or more errors in the recorded amounts. Most commonly, this was due to complex sentences involving charges with both concurrent and consecutive sentences that did not add up as recorded (n=12) (see Appendix E, Table E.4). In just two cases, the term amount (pre-credits) was incorrectly recorded, or the recorded suspension amount was incorrect. In some cases, the term amount (pre-credit) was erroneous because the sentence recorded was after suspensions and/or credits rather than before suspensions and/or credits were applied. Similarly, in some cases, the judge ordered an enhancement that was added to the term amount. We did not receive the variable recording the enhancement so we could not determine whether the enhancement was missing from that field in those cases. However, in other cases, the enhancement was not included in the term confinement variables, but the total sentence was correct/included the enhancement.

Figure 3. Total confinement accuracy Total confinement in automated data correct or not

Correct

Incorrect because not populated

Incorrect because credits are missing 8% 13% Incorrect because doesn't include 65% 35% 5% recorded suspensions Incorrect because doesn't include 7% 1% suspensions/suspensions not recorded 1% Incorrect some aspect wrong

Incorrect multiple reasons

Probation accuracy The accuracy of total probation terms was much higher than confinement: 81%. However, 87 cases had an error in one or more charges. Most commonly (n=46, 10% of all cases), the problem was that the probation amount was not populated. In 23 of the cases where the probation sentence was not populated, the sentence date was also not populated. This suggests that the probation amount was missing because the sentence had not yet been entered. However, this accounts for less than half of the missing data. Missing probation sentences also occurred when there were multiple court cases sentenced simultaneously. In these instances, the case we focused on did not have the probation sentence populated, but the probation sentence may have been populated in the other court cases (see Table C.1 in Appendix C for an example). In some cases, the sentence data was simply not populated.

The next most common issue (n=19) is due to some problem with the credits. Credit towards a probation sentence typically occurs in cases where the judge revokes probation (e.g., imposes a suspended or deferred sentence), and reinstates some portion of it. However, it is not always clear

16 whether credits should be applied to the probation or confinement term (see Table C.2 in Appendix C for an example of unclear language). Based on informal communication, our understanding is that the credit from supervision time served may be applied to either incarceration or to the remaining suspended sentence. Thus, in cases where the J&S indicated there was probation credit and there was not a concurrent period of incarceration, we presumed the credits were applicable to the probation term. We confirmed this with the probation order when it was available in Odyssey.

When credits were found to be the source of the error, most commonly, the data should have included credits towards probation but did not (n=9, 2% of cases overall). However, in five of these cases, the clerk did note probation credit for at least one charge. Thus, we made the correction because credit was not noted for each charge. In other cases, no credit was applied.

Another problem occurred when the clerk applied confinement credit to the probation term, but the credits should have been applied to current or future confinement (n=6). Finally, in four cases, the amount of credit recorded was incorrect. For example, in one case, there was a clear typo (the numbers were reversed: 253 vs. 235).

In nine cases, there was a probation term populated when it should not have been. In all of these cases, the disposition was a dismissal of either a deferred sentence or conditional discharge. In some cases, the earlier event date did not have any sentence, so it appears the sentence was populated or associated with the final case disposition.

Finally, in thirteen cases, the probation amount recorded was wrong, but at least in some cases, it may be an issue related to the transfer of the data. For example, in one case, there were three conviction charges, but the data we had included only a single charge (D-101-CR-2016-00090). Similarly, in another case the total probation amount was wrong, but there were multiple cases involved. We did not have the other cases in our dataset, however. We do not know whether the data were ever populated by the court or for some reason (e.g., the event was not flagged as a disposition) did not get pulled into the dataset we used. In some cases, the sentence date referred to a subsequent event (typically a revocation) and the amount of probation reflected the initial amount rather than the new amount (usually zero, as the entire suspension or referral was revoked). Others cases, though, were simply wrong. For example, in one case, the automated data indicate one year of probation but the term was three years. In a second, related case, the correct amount was listed (see Table E.3 in Appendix E). Finally, in two cases, there were multiple charges resulting in probation, but the combination of concurrent and consecutive sentences did not add up to the amount ordered by the judge. These results are summarized in Figure 4 below.

17

Figure 4. Total probation accuracy Total probation recorded in automated data correct or not

Correct Incorrect because credits are included Incorrect because credits are missing 10% 3% Incorrect because credit amount wrong 81% 19% 2% Incorrect because not populated Incorrect because amount wrong 2% 1% Incorrect because populated 1%

Consistency of sentencing data Accuracy varies by year as well. None of the confinement amounts were wrong in 2012; this is in stark contrast to the disposition error rate for 2012, which was the highest by year. In the remaining years, the error rate ranges from 34% in 2013 to 45% in 2014. Again, most errors are due to missing PSC or suspensions, regardless of year.

The proportion of cases in this sample with incorrect total probation has generally declined over time. It was especially high in 2012, but then dropped dramatically to 14% in 2013. It increased again in 2014, followed by a steady decline since then. Note that the majority of cases without a sentence date and that were missing a probation amount were in 2014.

Figure 5. Incorrect confinement and probation Proportion of Incorrect Confinement and Probation terms

70% 65% 60% 50% 44% 36% 38% 40% 30% 30% 22% 19% 20% 14% 13% 10% 0% 0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Confinement term is not correct Probation term is not correct

18

Accuracy varies widely by judicial district. Among cases with a confinement sentence, accuracy varied from a low of 47% in one judicial district to perfect accuracy in three others. However, in some districts, the number of cases was very low. For example, in district 7, there were only 2 cases in this sample, whereas in District 2 there were 154 cases. One may expect that a higher volume of cases would be associated with more errors since there is more opportunity for error. In the 2nd judicial district, the district with the highest volume of cases, the error rate is relatively high, with 42% of cases with errors or omissions in one or more charges. Conversely, the highest accuracy rates for confinement are observed in the counties with the lowest volume of cases (4, 6, 7, 8 10).

Figure 6. Incorrect sentences by jurisdiction Proportion of Incorrect Sentences by Jurisdiction 60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 (n=28) (n=154) (n=83) (n=16) (n=66) (n=17) (n=2) (n=8) (n=13) (n=3) (n=15) (n=27) (n=15)

Confinement Probation

Like confinement amounts, probation accuracy varies greatly by judicial district. However, different judicial districts have errors in different areas. For example, a large proportion of the cases in the 8th judicial district has one or more errors with the probation sentence, but no errors with the confinement sentence. Only one district, the 7th, had no errors with either confinement or probation terms.

In order to understand the errors that arose by judicial district, we analyzed the source of the errors. There were no clear patterns for confinement errors by district, but the source of probation error varies by judicial district. For example, the most common problem in the 2nd judicial district was that the amount was not populated; approximately half (n=16) also did not have a sentence date. In the 3rd district, the most common error was that time was credited to the probation term when it should not have been. In the other districts, there was not such a clear pattern; instead, there were a variety of reasons for the errors observed. These results are summarized in Table 9 below.

19

Table 9. Source of probation errors by judicial district Judicial district Reason for error 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Not populated when it 2 31 2 4 3 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 should be Should not have credits 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 Should have credits, 0 1 7 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 doesn’t Credited amount wrong 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shouldn’t have probation 1 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 (discharged/dismissed from CD/deferral) Wrong amount recorded 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 Does not add up 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 5 35 12 4 19 3 0 5 2 1 2 4 3

A Note about Judgment and Sentence (J&S) Documents One of the difficulties in recording these data and making sense of the sentence lies with the J&S documents. These documents are sometimes confusing. Take, for example, the following sentence:

Defendant shall be sentenced to the [NAME] County Detention Center for ninety (90) days with ninety (90) days of said sentence suspended for a period of three hundred and sixty-four (364) days [emphasis added], and the Defendant is ordered to be placed on supervised probation under the terms and conditions of the Standard Probation Order in effect in this district for a period of eighteen (18) months…

In this example, it appears that the defendant received a 90-day sentence that was suspended. As written, it is unclear to what the 364 days refer. This was an amended document; the original document helps clear up the confusion as it indicates that the 90 days are suspended “in favor of one (1) year supervised probation” for charge 1, and 18 months’ probation are imposed for charge 2. Without reviewing the original document, however, it would be very difficult to understand the sentence.

Another difficulty occurs when the math does not add up as written in the J&S document. We provided an example of this in Table B.2 (Appendix B). Traditionally, the sentences in the J&S documents have been written in narrative form, and the sentence may or may not be summarized at the end of the narrative.

Some judicial districts do add summary information to the end of the form. This typically lists each sentence component (e.g., total confinement after suspensions but before presentence confinement credit, the amount of presentence confinement credit, total probation, probation credit, and any other relevant components of the sentence (e.g., fines, fees)). Other districts use a form to separate each charge that resulted in a conviction or conditional discharge, indicates the sentence by charge, whether concurrent or consecutive and to which count, and provides all details (e.g., statute number, date of offense, counts number, etc.). This form also includes a summary page to record total sentence,

20 suspensions, credits, probation, etc. These summaries are especially helpful when trying to decipher the sentences imposed in cases with multiple charges or multiple cases sentenced together.

Judicial districts also record presentence confinement credit differently. In some districts, they only note the dates for which the defendant should receive credit (e.g., from June 5, 2013 to August 3, 2014). Others specify the number of days of PSC. Since the calculations could be erroneous, it would be useful to include both the dates and the amount of PSC, including the total PSC if the defendant is given credit for different times.

As noted in the report, it is sometimes unclear whether the credit ordered should be applied to the probation period versus current or future confinement. This may be due in part because of the use of the terms “presentence confinement credit” and “probation credit.” In order to ensure that the judge’s intent is carried out, the language should very clearly state the amount of credit, which portion of the sentence it applies to (confinement or probation), and when (in the case of PSC ordered in case of future incarceration in the case). However, even when the judge’s intent appears clear, other agencies may not interpret the J&S document the same way. For example, in one case, the J&S states:

“…it is the order of the court that the defendant receive credit for pre-sentence incarceration from Feb 5, 2013 through June 27, 2013 for a total credit of 143 days which shall be applied to her term of probation [emphasis added]” The automated court data shows this credit towards the probation sentence. However, the New Mexico Corrections Department has this listed as presentence confinement credit in their automated data.8

It seems clear that the judge intended the presentence confinement credit to be applied to the probation. However, it may be that there were discussions about the credit that did not appear in the court records explaining NMCD’s interpretation. Ensuring this is as clear as possible for all key parties is crucial for ensuring the sentence ordered is carried out.

Discussion and Recommendations The purpose of this study was to examine the quality of disposition and sentencing data from the AOC. The results are intended to provide information both to the AOC who records data for internal use as well as transfers court case data to other agencies, and to provide information to secondary users (like researchers) who use the data to draw conclusions and make recommendations. We assessed the quality of these data by focusing on completeness, face validity, duplication/uniqueness, accuracy, and consistency. In this section we discuss key strengths and limitations of the data, including difficulties that emerged when working with the data. We provide recommendations for the AOC and highlight features of the data that may assist secondary users of the data.

We identified several key strengths of the AOC data. Completeness was very high for both sentence and disposition data. Nearly all cases with a conviction (guilty plea, no contest, conviction, conviction by jury) had a sentence populated. While the rate was slightly lower for those with a conditional discharge or deferred sentence, most of these cases also had a sentence populated. Although virtually all charges had an associated disposition, this is likely due to the constraints used to pull the data. NMSC receives only

8 In a separate report, we compared the consistency of the NMCD automated data with AOC’s automated sentence data, and assessed the accuracy of the sentence information from each relative to the J&S documents. See the report “Quality of the New Mexico Corrections Department’s Sentencing Data” for more information.

21 cases involving a disposition. Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that very few charges did not have a disposition. Despite this, we also found that not all charges were represented. For example, when sentences are amended, it may apply to or be updated under a single charge. In this scenario, the other charges would be missing from the new entry.

A second strength of these data was that face validity was high for disposition types as well as the sentences associated with most disposition types. All the disposition types used seemed reasonable, but we did not have a list of legitimate codes against which to check these dispositions. Face validity was also high for sentence completion. We would not expect sentences to be associated with dismissals or acquittals, and very few of these cases had sentence information populated.

We did notice, though, that for “LR” cases involving decisions about pretrial detention, the disposition codes were not reflective of the likely outcomes (e.g., pretrial detainment granted or not) unless the court action was withdrawn. In 2016, the voters of New Mexico passed a constitutional amendment to reform bail practices in the state. Therefore, ensuring that the AOC and others can track the success of that constitutional amendment is important. One way to do so would be to analyze available court data, but the disposition codes would need to allow for the relevant outcomes. Thus, we recommend including disposition codes that reflect the outcomes of these cases.

Third, duplication of data was very low. We found that fewer than 1% of charges within cases were duplicated. When duplication was discovered, it was most often due to disparate data which likely does not originate with the AOC but is a result of how the data are populated and pulled from NMSC’s data system. Specifically, NMSC appends each new data pull from the AOC to their existing data. When corrections or new information are made, a new record is created leading to duplication. Going forward, the NMSC will include a load date which will help determine if there are updates. There is also a disposition code identification number that they will begin to include on all data extractions. This number will also be useful for identifying updated information.

Finally, accuracy of disposition information was high. A very small proportion of charges had an erroneous disposition. When errors were found, these were primarily due to a conditional discharge or deferred sentence recorded as a conviction (guilty, no contest, conviction). Technically, a deferred sentence is the result of a no contest plea or conviction, while in a conditional discharge, the judge does not assign culpability to the defendant.

There were also some limitations found with the data. While disposition accuracy was high, the accuracy of sentence information was lower than anticipated. Probation sentences were accurate more often than confinement sentences. However, many of the errors were due to missing information rather than incorrectly recorded sentences. In some cases, particularly for cases involving only a probation sentence, there was no sentence recorded for any of the charges. In some instances, it is likely that this is because the judge had not yet sentenced the defendant at the time AOC pulled the data, though this does not account for most of the missing data. When an error occurred for the total confinement variables, it was typically because some component of the total sentence was not subtracted (i.e., the presentence confinement credit or suspension amount was not removed from the total sentence). Since the total sentence did frequently include PSC and suspensions, we considered the omission of these as erroneous. Importantly, though, we discovered that when the field “suspend all” was populated, the

22 total sentence did not subtract the suspended amount. AOC is aware of this problem and the software developers are expected to fix this glitch in future versions of the software.

Lack of consistency is perhaps the greatest limitation of the data. As noted above, inconsistency begins with J&S documentation. Clearly documenting the disposition and sentence of each charge as well as summarizing the entire sentence (including suspensions and PSC), would likely help all parties to understand the information. While each judicial district should have the ability to determine how they would like to record sentence information in the J&S, we recommend that each district summarize the sentence in a consistent manner to ensure that all parties receiving the data fully understand the judge’s intent. For any confinement ordered, this should include the sentence before suspensions/credits, suspended amount, the total sentence after suspensions, presentence credit and when that is to be applied. The probation component should include the amount prior to any credits, the credit amount, and the amount after credits.

Another inconsistency is the recording of conditional discharges. These are sometimes, but not always, recorded as a disposition. If recorded as a disposition, this appears in the online Odyssey as “Disposition: conditional discharge.” However, in other cases it may say: “conditional discharge.” If it is the latter, it is not included in the dataset the NMSC receives because it is not a “disposition.” Requiring that conditional discharges be recorded as a disposition would eliminate this inconsistency. This is especially important because with a conditional discharge, there is no adjudication of guilt. Similarly, there is variation in the way court clerks record successful completion of deferred sentences and conditional discharges. A little less than half of these dismissed dispositions have a sentence recorded.

As noted several times in this report, when multiple charges result in a conviction and sentence, court clerks may record the sentence by charge or by case. If by case, court clerks may record the sentence under all charges or just one. Additionally, the most common recording method varies by sentence type (confinement versus probation). This poses a particularly challenging situation for those who use the underlying data. When multiple charges in a case include a sentence, it is unclear whether these should be summed or if the maximum length should be used for analysis. While there is a concurrent/consecutive flag, this flag, when correctly populated, may refer to charges in the same case or charges in another case. This makes analysis of sentence data very difficult. We understand that this occurs because court clerks base data entry on the way the J&S is written (by count or case). This is further complicated by having multiple cases sentenced at the same time. Perhaps the most obvious fix to this problem would be to include variables that summarize the entire sentence for a case or set of cases. However, our understanding is that the software cannot be altered to include these fields. Thus, in the absence of this, we recommend that the AOC discuss options for adding values to the existing flags for concurrent and consecutive sentences that would clarify whether the sentence listed are concurrent or consecutive to another charge versus another case. We also suggest that when the sentence reflects the total case, that clerks enter it a single time rather than repeat the sentence for each charge. The AOC may also explore the possibility of eliminating the recording of sentences at the individual charge level. However, we understand that there may be reasons to keep that level of detail and that J&S documentation does not always summarize the sentence at the case level. If all New Mexico courts adopted a standardized J&S summary format, though, this could be an option.

23

Finally, some cases involve sentences on different dates as sentences are updated (e.g., to remedy errors from earlier data entry or court error) or amended (e.g., revocation from probation). However, this may only apply to a single charge; therefore, the court may not update all charges. It is also important for data users to know that court clerks may characterize probation revocations as a court action rather than a disposition. Thus, the original sentence may never be changed. However, this varies. In some cases, court clerks record a revocation as an amended sentence.

Besides the recommendations already made, in order to ameliorate these inconsistencies, we recommend creating a comprehensive data entry manual or reviewing existing documentation to ensure consistency in these areas. When asked, court representatives did not provide a data entry guide, though there are policies guiding the entry of certain components (e.g., how to enter a deferred sentence), suggesting that a comprehensive guide may exist. Regardless of whether the courts need to create a more comprehensive guide or review existing documentation, particular attention should be paid to those areas where we found inconsistencies (e.g., whether PSC should be recorded) as well as exploring whether additional checks for accuracy could be embedded into the software. This would help to ensure consistent data entry across judicial districts and over time. Scheduling periodic reviews of the guide would also be helpful since there are likely to be changes over time.

If possible, sharing the data entry guide with secondary data users would be very beneficial. This would help secondary users to better understand the data, including what is or is not available and how each variable is or should be populated. During the course of this analysis, we shared the results with the NMSC. As a result of identifying some of the problems, such as duplication of data and incomplete number of charges, the NMSC plans to change some of their procedures for handling the data they receive. First, they will include a load date which will help them (and other users) to determine if there are updates to the dispositions and/or sentences. Similarly, upon further exploration, NMSC discovered that there is a disposition code identification number that they will begin to include on all data extractions. This number will also be useful for identifying updated information.

Importantly, the NMSC does not have a data dictionary from the AOC. Thus, they are not always aware of variables that could be helpful. For example, it may be that there are additional variables that would help users determine whether the judge consolidated cases for sentencing. Furthermore, this assessment found that the total sentences sometimes included credits that did not appear in the automated data we received. This suggests that there are additional places where credit information is stored. Since the AOC data system is proprietary, the staff are not allowed to share a data dictionary that describes the variables and table linkages. It would be useful, however, to have a data entry guide so non-AOC users are more knowledgeable about the data gathered and maintained by AOC.

Study limitations As with any study, this study has limitations. One is that the data the NMSC receives are disposed cases only rather than all cases filed. Thus, we do not know whether we truly have all disposed cases. An informal assessment of the sequential order of cases reveals some are missing. Certainly, some portion of these were not yet disposed at the time AOC pulled the data, but some were disposed. Primarily, these appear to be district court cases with misdemeanors as the final charge, though there are likely other cases missing dispositions as well. Furthermore, as we discovered when assessing the data, if the disposition type is not recorded as such (as in the case of conditional discharges), we will not have that

24 data. In order to get a true assessment of the extent of disposition completeness, the data pull should include all cases filed rather than disposed.

A second limitation is that we may have some, but not all, charges in a case. When assessing whether we were missing any charge dispositions, we compared the maximum charge number recorded by the AOC to the sum of charges in the dataset for that event and sentence date. We flagged cases where the maximum number recorded by the court was higher than the total number of charges in the dataset, indicating there may have been charges missing. We found disparities in over one-third of cases. In some instances, this is because the sentence was amended or updated, but only a single charge was updated. In other cases, it may be that one or more of the charges in a case did not have a disposition associated with them.

A third limitation was our initial approach to the study. When we began, we considered the disposition and sentence in a single case. As noted throughout this report, defendants can be involved in multiple cases concurrently and the sentence can result from each of these. While we tried to account for this in the final analyses, it is possible that some cases with which we found error involved multiple concurrent cases that we did not initially identify.

Fourth, during the course of this project we discovered that we did not have some variables that would have been beneficial. As noted previously, we did not receive enhancements (e.g., additional time added to the basic sentence for habitual offender) or the flag indicating that the total sentence was a life term. There are likely other variables, particularly those related to presentence confinement credit, that are available in tables that we did not receive. However, the omission of these variables did not hinder this assessment. However, if there are variables summarizing the total sentence, this would have facilitated this assessment and may have changed the results.

Conclusion It is nearly impossible to ensure complete accuracy in data like these; however, it is important to review the data to remedy errors made. It is vital to understand that translating complex disposition, and particularly sentencing information, into a preexisting format is challenging. Despite that, this assessment found both strengths and limitations of the AOC’s disposition and sentencing data quality. As secondary users of the data, we examine and use the data differently than primary data users. Our hope is that this study will help the AOC improve existing and future data, and that it will assist secondary users to understand the data. Finally, we expect this study will help those working on the criminal justice data-sharing network. Understanding the quality and structure of data from participating agencies such as the AOC is important to ensure the success of this network.

25

Appendices

26

Appendix A. Supplemental Tables Table A.1. Variables Included in Dataset Table source Variables name Description of variable % populated Court Case DefendantDOBDate Defendant date of birth 99% Court Case PartyID Defendant id number 100% Court Case DefendantNameFirst Defendant first name >99% Court Case DefendantNameMiddle Defendant middle name 38% Court Case DefendantNameLast Defendant last name 100% Court Offense History CaseID Case ID number 100% Court Offense History Degree Degree of charge 100% (e.g. 1st degree felony) Court Offense History Statute Statute of charge >99% (e.g. 30-16-6) Court Offense History Description Description of charge in case 100% Court Offense History CaseNumber Court Case number 100% Court Offense History OffenseStage Stage of Offense 100% (e.g. Disposition Event) Court Offense History ConvictionFlagYesNo Was there a conviction? 100% Court Offense History EventD Date of event 100% Court Offense DetailedCrimeCategory Specific Category of crime 100% Categorization (e.g. Burglary) Court Offense CrimeCategory Broad Category of crime 100% Categorization (e.g. Property) Court Case CaseType Type of court case 100% (e.g. Felony crimes against persons) Court Location CourtType Court location type 100% (e.g. District) Court Case DefendantGender Defendant gender 83% Court Case DefendantEthnicity Defendant Ethnicity 67% Court Case DefendantRace Defendant Race 41% Court Location JudicialDistrict Judicial District 100% Court Location County Court County 100% Court Sentence OffenseHistoryID ID number for sentence offense 38% Court Offense History OffenseHistoryID ID number for offense 100% Court Confinement TotalTermHours Number of hours of <1% confinement after suspensions or credits Court Confinement TotalTermDays Number of days of confinement 9% after suspensions or credits Court Confinement TotalTermMonths Number of months of 10% confinement after suspensions or credits

27

Table A.1. Variables Included in Dataset, continued Table source Variables name Description of variable % populated Court Confinement TotalTermYears Number of years of confinement 9% after suspensions or credits Court Confinement Concurrent Is the confinement concurrent? 5% Court Confinement Consecutive Is the confinement consecutive? 4% Court Confinement SuspendAll Was the entire confinement 4% suspended? Court Confinement LifeTerm Is the confinement for life? <1% Court Confinement TermYears Number of years of confinement 8% before suspensions and credits Court Confinement TermMonths Number of months of 11% confinement before suspensions and credits Court Confinement TermDays Number of days of confinement 6% before suspensions and credits Court Confinement TermHours Number of hours of <1% confinement before suspensions and credits Court Confinement SuspendDays Number of days suspended for 4% confinement Court Confinement SuspendMonths Number of months suspended 6% for confinement Court Confinement SuspendYears Number of years suspended for 6% confinement Court Confinement ConfinementLocation Location of Confinement (e.g. 22% New Mexico Department of Corrections) Court Probation ProbationTotalDays Number of days ordered to 14% probation after suspensions and credits Court Probation ProbationTotalMonths Number of months ordered to 20% probation after suspensions and credits Court Probation ProbationTotalYears Number of months ordered to 21% probation after suspensions and credits Court Probation ProbationTermDays Number of days ordered to 6% probation before suspensions and credits Court Probation ProbationTermMonths Number of months ordered to 11% probation before suspensions and credits Court Probation ProbationTermYears Number of years ordered to 15% probation before suspensions and credits

28

Table A.1. Variables Included in Dataset, continued Table source Variables name Description of variable % populated Court Probation CreditTimeServedMonths Number of probation credit <1% months for time served Court Probation CreditTimeServedYears Number of probation credit <1% years for time served Court Probation ProbationComment *Unsure, this is never populated 0% so we do not know what this field is for. Court Probation SentenceComponentType Not sure- all populated have NM 26% Probation Court Offense History Disposition Disposition of case >99% (e.g. Guilty, no contest plea) Court Offense History DispositionCategory Disposition category 100% (e.g. Convicted) Court Suspend Credit SuspendAll Flag indicating whether the <1% sentence should be suspended in its entirety Court Suspend Credit SuspendApplyCharges Not sure what this refers to, but <1% perhaps it is a flag to apply recorded suspension amount to one or more charges? Court Suspend Credit SuspendDays Number of days suspended <1% Court Suspend Credit SuspendMonths Number of months suspended <1% Court Suspend Credit SuspendYears Number of years suspended <1% Court Suspend Credit CreditHours Number of hours suspended <1% Court Suspend Credit CreditDays Number of days of credit 1% Court Suspend Credit CreditMonths Number of months of credit <1% Court Suspend Credit CreditYears Number of years of credit <1% Court Suspend Credit SentenceComponentType Unknown, never populated 0% Court Offense History ChargeID ID number for charge, specific to 100% a charge in a court case Court Offense History ChargeNumber Charge number/count number 100% assigned to a particular charge in a case Court Offense History NumberofCharges Number of Charges 100% Court Offense History PartyID Party ID 100% Court Sentence SentenceID Sentence ID 38% Court Sentence SentenceDate Sentence Date 38% Court Offense History EventDate History event date 100%

29

Table A.2. Disposition values and their categories Disposition N Disposition Details N Category Acquittal 2,646 Acquittal - Bench Trial 177 Acquittal - Jury 635 Acquitted 1,818 Acquitted on Appeal 16 Juvenile Action 181 Juvenile Admission 164 Delinquent Adjudication 17 Conditional 15,053 Conditional Discharge Pending 14,914 Discharge CRB: COND DISCHARGE 30-31-28 22 CRB: COND DISCHARGE 31-20-13 117 Conditional 3,559 Conditional Discharge, Dismissal of Charges 1,190 Discharge Conditional Discharge, Dismissed 2,369 Dismissed Convicted 74,039 Conviction 15,529 Conviction - Bench Trial 144 Conviction - Jury Trial 874 Conviction - Plea 15,799 CRB: GUILTY/NO CONTEST PLEA 99 GUILTY PLEA/NOLO CONTENDERE 1 Guilty, No Contest Plea 41,593 Deferred 10,269 CRB: DEFERRED 42 CRB: DEFERRED/DISMISSED 2 Deferred 10,225 Deferred Dismissed 3,011 Deferred Dismissed 3,011 Dismissed/ 138,067 Appeal Dismissed 24 Discharged Charge Dismissed By Court - Disposition Vacated 36 Charge Dismissed By Prosecution - Disposition Vacated 15 Charge Not Included in Amended Complaint 54 CRB: DISMISS BY JUDGE/NOT RULE 8 CRB: DISMISSED BY PROSECUTOR 8 CRJ: DISMISS BY PROS/MISTRIAL 2 Discharged 34 Dismissal, No True Bill 350 Dismissed - Defendant Deceased 265

30

Table A.2 Disposition values and their categories cont. Disposition Category N Disposition Details N Dismissed/ 138.067 Dismissed - Defendant Incompetent 684 Discharged cont. Dismissed - Double Jeopardy 138 Dismissed - Failure to Complete Discovery (Sanction) 772 Dismissed - Insufficient Complaint 166 Dismissed - Lack of Prosecution 409 Dismissed - Mistrial No Manifest Necessity 6 Dismissed - No Jurisdiction 21 Dismissed - Speedy Trial Violation 256 Dismissed - State Failure to Comply with Court Order 397 Dismissed - State Failure to Transport Defendant 80 Dismissed - State Not Ready for Trial 71 Dismissed - Statute of Limitations-Complaint Filed Untimely 3 Dismissed - Wrong Defendant/Identity Issue 28 Dismissed by Prosecutor - Prosecution Unable to Proceed 2,607 Dismissed by Prosecutor / Nolle Prosequi 105,467 Dismissed by Prosecutor Per Plea Agreement 15,408 Dismissed by the Judge, Not on the Rule 7045 Dismissed on the Rule 3,725 Dismissed Pursuant to Appeal 117 Other 462 Consent Decree 15 Consolidated 82 Directed Verdict 33 Extradition Denied 8 Extradition Granted 71 Extradition Other 22 Extradition Waived 93 Reversed - Conviction Dismissed on Appeal 214 Remand 4,726 CRB: REMAND 1 Remand 4,725

31

Table A.2 Disposition values and their categories cont. Transferred 115 Transferred 115 Unavailable 135 System Missing 27

32

Table A.3. Disposition by Year Disposition Disposition Type Year Category 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Acquittal Acquittal - Bench 2.34% 25.73% 26.32% 33.33% 12.28% Trial Acquittal - Jury 3.23% 20.68% 29.56% 40.23% 6.30% Acquitted 35.97% 36.85% 22.17% 5.01% 0.00% Acquitted on Appeal 44.44% 0.00% 0.00% 22.22% 33.33% Juvenile Action Juvenile Admission 13.42% 26.85% 14.77% 19.46% 25.50% Delinquent 17.65% 11.76% 23.53% 17.65% 29.41% Adjudication Conditional Conditional 19.39% 25.61% 25.94% 18.75% 10.31% Discharge Discharge Pending CRB: COND 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% DISCHARGE 31-20-13 CRB: COND 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% DISCHARGE 30-31-28 Conditional Conditional Discharge Discharge, Dismissal 58.63% 33.58% 7.79% 0.00% 0.00% Dismissed of Charges Conditional 26.88% 34.85% 28.12% 9.16% 1.00% Discharge, Dismissed Convicted Conviction 27.20% 36.59% 27.61% 8.61% 0.00% Conviction - Bench 0.70% 14.69% 29.37% 35.66% 19.58% Trial Conviction - Jury Trial 2.65% 14.60% 36.31% 34.26% 12.18% Conviction - Plea 1.65% 5.20% 14.52% 44.63% 34.00% CRB: GUILTY/NO 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% CONTEST PLEA Guilty, No Contest 26.04% 34.78% 28.67% 10.52% 0.00% Plea Deferred CRB: DEFERRED 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Deferred 19.32% 23.47% 25.16% 21.80% 10.25% Deferred Deferred Dismissed 35.61% 28.90% 22.58% 12.24% 0.67% Dismissed

33

Table A.3. Disposition by Year, cont. Disposition Category Disposition Type Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Dismissed/Discharged Appeal Dismissed 0.00% 4.17% 8.33% 29.17% 58.33% Charge Dismissed By Court - 7.69% 3.85% 7.69% 30.77% 50.00% Disposition Vacated Charge Dismissed By Prosecution - 0.00% 0.00% 15.38% 76.92% 7.69% Disposition Vacated Charge Not Included in 0.00% 42.59% 9.26% 33.33% 14.81% Amended Complaint CRB: DISMISS BY 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% JUDGE/NOT RULE CRB: DISMISSED BY 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% PROSECUTOR Discharged 0.00% 3.03% 0.00% 18.18% 78.79% Dismissal, No True 4.33% 2.17% 1.55% 88.24% 3.72% Bill Dismissed - Defendant 0.00% 6.67% 13.75% 52.50% 27.08% Deceased Dismissed - Defendant 7.69% 14.31% 31.54% 37.85% 8.62% Incompetent Dismissed - Double 2.91% 48.54% 1.94% 14.56% 32.04% Jeopardy Dismissed - Failure to Complete 18.52% 5.05% 11.79% 30.96% 33.68% Discovery (Sanction) Dismissed - Insufficient 2.05% 2.74% 17.81% 34.93% 42.47% Complaint Dismissed - Lack of 1.90% 64.77% 5.96% 18.70% 8.67% Prosecution

34

Table A.3. Disposition by Year, cont. Disposition Category Disposition Type Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Dismissed/Discharged Dismissed - Mistrial cont. No Manifest 0.00% 50.00% 33.33% 16.67% 0.00% Necessity Dismissed - No 0.00% 19.05% 28.57% 19.05% 33.33% Jurisdiction Dismissed - Speedy 8.58% 49.36% 22.75% 13.30% 6.01% Trial Violation Dismissed - State Failure to Comply 2.54% 10.91% 14.97% 24.62% 46.95% with Court Order Dismissed - State Failure to Transport 0.00% 23.08% 5.13% 10.26% 61.54% Defendant Dismissed - State Not 0.00% 8.45% 21.13% 57.75% 12.68% Ready for Trial Dismissed - Statute of Limitations- 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% Complaint Filed Untimely Dismissed - Wrong Defendant/Identity 39.29% 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 46.43% Issue Dismissed by Prosecutor - 3.34% 6.93% 15.06% 38.24% 36.43% Prosecution Unable to Proceed Dismissed by Prosecutor / Nolle 26.79% 31.16% 27.06% 12.08% 2.91% Prosequi Dismissed by Prosecutor Per Plea 1.58% 4.56% 21.58% 41.49% 30.80% Agreement Dismissed by the Judge, Not on the 31.50% 33.31% 27.30% 7.88% 0.02% Rule Dismissed on the 5.78% 15.44% 54.30% 24.48% 0.00% Rule

35

Table A.3. Disposition by Year, cont. Disposition Category Disposition Type Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Dismissed/Discharged Dismissed Pursuant 33.33% 29.63% 28.70% 8.33% 0.00% cont. to Appeal Dismissed Pursuant 20.75% 24.53% 0.00% 13.21% 41.51% to Appeal Other Consent Decree 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% Consolidated 14.63% 24.39% 9.76% 29.27% 21.95% Directed Verdict 0.00% 15.15% 24.24% 33.33% 27.27% Extradition Denied 12.50% 37.50% 0.00% 25.00% 25.00% Extradition Granted 2.82% 22.54% 33.80% 23.94% 16.90% Extradition Other 0.00% 14.29% 38.10% 19.05% 28.57% Extradition Waived 3.23% 26.88% 26.88% 21.51% 21.51%

Remand Remand 11.64% 24.22% 22.03% 33.94% 8.16% Transferred Transferred 6.38% 9.57% 5.32% 18.09% 60.64% Unavailable System missing 3.70% 37.04% 7.41% 51.85% 0.00%

36

Table A.4. Disposition by Jurisdiction Disposition Disposition Type Jurisdiction Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Acquitted Acquittal - Bench Trial 0.00% 71.75% 1.13% 1.13% 17.51% 0.56% 0.00% 0.00% 1.13% 0.00% 4.52% 0.56% 1.69% Acquittal - Jury 5.67% 43.46% 5.83% 0.79% 14.96% 4.09% 1.89% 1.57% 6.77% 0.63% 2.99% 5.35% 5.98% Acquitted 4.51% 38.45% 6.05% 0.94% 14.58% 4.24% 1.43% 0.83% 2.70% 0.17% 7.43% 11.00% 7.70% Acquitted on Appeal 18.75% 6.25% 6.25% 0.00% 43.75% 0.00% 6.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.25% 12.50% Juvenile Delinquent 5.88% 35.29% 0.00% 0.00% 5.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.76% 0.00% 23.53% 0.00% 17.65% Action Adjudication Juvenile Admission 0.61% 75.61% 1.22% 0.61% 1.83% 0.00% 0.00% 4.27% 2.44% 0.00% 1.83% 0.00% 11.59% Conditional Conditional Discharge 7.82% 39.74% 4.24% 4.19% 8.75% 5.20% 0.60% 1.46% 2.80% 1.72% 7.85% 7.23% 8.39% Discharge Pending CRB: COND 0.00% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 47.01% 0.00% 0.00% 3.42% 0.00% 12.82% 29.06% 0.00% DISCHARGE 31-20-13 CRB: COND 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 9.09% 31.82% 0.00% DISCHARGE 30-31-28 Conditional Conditional Discharge, 8.24% 16.05% 5.55% 7.56% 16.13% 5.13% 3.70% 3.03% 3.03% 4.62% 5.55% 8.99% 12.44% Discharge Dismissal of Charges Dismissed Conditional Discharge, 6.21% 43.14% 5.91% 2.74% 12.24% 5.53% 0.38% 2.70% 2.87% 0.97% 3.76% 4.69% 8.86% Dismissed Convicted Conviction 2.64% 4.04% 1.59% 5.00% 24.46% 1.34% 0.61% 2.36% 15.71% 2.13% 20.86% 11.60% 7.64% Conviction - Bench 7.64% 7.64% 2.78% 5.56% 43.75% 12.50% 2.08% 2.08% 2.78% 0.00% 4.17% 7.64% 1.39% Trial Conviction - Jury Trial 3.89% 39.36% 4.35% 1.83% 10.76% 3.66% 0.46% 2.40% 8.24% 0.11% 7.09% 10.30% 7.55% Conviction - Plea 6.27% 23.62% 12.01% 1.80% 20.01% 4.38% 2.72% 2.46% 4.06% 0.70% 8.13% 6.87% 6.97% CRB: GUILTY/NO 0.00% 0.00% 84.85% 0.00% 0.00% 2.02% 0.00% 1.01% 9.09% 0.00% 1.01% 2.02% 0.00% CONTEST PLEA GUILTY PLEA/NOLO 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% CONTENDERE

37

Table A.4. Disposition by Jurisdiction cont. Disposition Disposition Type Jurisdiction Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Convicted Guilty, No Contest 7.88% 38.36% 17.92% 0.02% 13.42% 5.33% 2.26% 2.82% 0.00% 0.47% 2.40% 4.64% 4.49% cont. Plea Deferred CRB: DEFERRED 0.00% 0.00% 26.19% 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 19.05% 0.00% 0.00% 40.48% 0.00% Deferred 1.37% 45.65% 5.55% 3.67% 19.96% 2.43% 0.43% 1.39% 3.27% 0.89% 0.37% 5.40% 9.63% Deferred CRB: DEFERRED/ 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Dismissed DISMISSED Deferred Dismissed 0.83% 47.33% 6.54% 3.12% 20.49% 3.35% 1.59% 0.70% 2.49% 0.60% 0.07% 2.79% 10.10% Dismissed/ Appeal 20.83% 8.33% 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 33.33% Discharged Dismissed Charge Dismissed By Court - Disposition 13.89% 30.56% 0.00% 16.67% 2.78% 2.78% 0.00% 5.56% 0.00% 0.00% 13.89% 0.00% 13.89% Vacated Charge Dismissed By Prosecution - 0.00% 0.00% 13.33% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 13.33% 20.00% 0.00% 13.33% Disposition Vacated Charge not included in 1.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 81.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.81% 1.85% 0.00% Amended Complaint Discharged 8.82% 82.35% 2.94% 0.00% 0.00% 2.94% 0.00% 0.00% 2.94% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% CRB: DISMISS BY 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 87.50% 0.00% 0.00% JUDGE/NOT RULE CRB: DISMISSED BY 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 87.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% PROSECUTOR

38

Table A.4. Disposition by Jurisdiction cont. Disposition Disposition Type Jurisdiction Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Dismissed CRJ: DISMISS BY cont. PROS/ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% MISTRIAL Dismissal, No True Bill 0.86% 7.14% 2.29% 0.00% 2.57% 0.86% 0.29% 0.86% 84.86% 0.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Dismissed - Defendant 3.02% 66.79% 4.53% 1.13% 0.75% 0.75% 0.38% 0.00% 2.64% 3.02% 0.75% 4.91% 11.32% Deceased Dismissed - Defendant 10.67% 56.14% 2.19% 0.15% 1.90% 0.73% 1.90% 1.61% 4.82% 0.58% 2.63% 2.05% 14.62% Incompetent Dismissed - Double 12.32% 68.84% 2.17% 0.72% 0.72% 0.72% 0.72% 0.00% 4.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.42% Jeopardy Dismissed - Failure to Complete Discovery 0.13% 93.91% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.83% (Sanction) Dismissed - 0.60% 70.48% 1.20% 1.81% 1.81% 1.20% 0.60% 4.22% 7.83% 0.60% 0.00% 0.60% 9.04% Insufficient Complaint Dismissed - Lack of 3.18% 13.94% 1.96% 0.24% 5.38% 0.49% 55.50% 4.65% 3.42% 1.22% 1.96% 0.00% 8.07% Prosecution Dismissed - Mistrial 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% No Manifest Necessity Dismissed - No 23.81% 0.00% 4.76% 0.00% 19.05% 0.00% 4.76% 0.00% 23.81% 0.00% 4.76% 9.52% 9.52% Jurisdiction Dismissed - Speedy 1.56% 33.20% 0.78% 0.00% 4.30% 0.00% 1.17% 0.39% 4.30% 0.39% 5.08% 9.38% 39.45% Trial Violation Dismissed - State Failure to Comply with 0.00% 95.47% 0.00% 0.50% 2.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.51% Court Order

39

Table A.4. Disposition by Jurisdiction cont. Disposition Disposition Type Jurisdiction Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Dismissed Dismissed - State cont. Failure to Transport 0.00% 92.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.50% Defendant Dismissed - State Not 7.04% 56.34% 0.00% 0.00% 4.23% 0.00% 0.00% 1.41% 7.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 23.94% Ready for Trial Dismissed - Statute of Limitations-Complaint 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% Filed Untimely Dismissed - Wrong Defendant/Identity 0.00% 92.86% 0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Issue Dismissed by Prosecutor - 2.34% 72.15% 0.19% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 0.35% 0.35% 6.21% 0.42% 0.31% 1.42% 15.96% Prosecution Unable to Proceed Dismissed by Prosecutor / Nolle 5.54% 48.37% 7.41% 2.50% 5.06% 2.07% 2.46% 2.07% 3.50% 0.91% 8.93% 4.14% 7.06% Prosequi Dismissed by Prosecutor Per Plea 4.65% 33.07% 6.33% 0.64% 6.56% 1.00% 2.02% 2.49% 10.05% 0.58% 14.30% 6.88% 11.45% Agreement Dismissed by the 0.99% 39.86% 2.40% 0.17% 3.55% 0.87% 0.67% 1.89% 35.43% 0.10% 2.92% 2.46% 8.70% Judge, Not on the Rule Dismissed on the Rule 0.54% 88.67% 0.89% 0.11% 1.05% 0.35% 0.19% 0.21% 1.37% 0.08% 0.27% 1.26% 5.02% Dismissed Pursuant to 7.69% 2.56% 4.27% 0.00% 10.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.85% 43.59% 0.00% 3.42% 5.13% 22.22% Appeal Reversed - Conviction 3.27% 13.55% 2.34% 1.87% 21.03% 0.47% 0.00% 3.27% 4.21% 0.47% 9.35% 0.00% 40.19%

40

Table A.4. Disposition by Jurisdiction Disposition Disposition Type Jurisdiction Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Other Consent Decree 0.00% 46.67% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 13.33%

Consolidated 15.85% 0.00% 21.95% 0.00% 1.22% 10.98% 0.00% 0.00% 3.66% 0.00% 8.54% 34.15% 3.66% Directed Verdict 0.00% 45.45% 0.00% 3.03% 15.15% 3.03% 0.00% 0.00% 6.06% 0.00% 18.18% 9.09% 0.00% Extradition Denied 0.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% Extradition Granted 2.82% 2.82% 38.03% 0.00% 8.45% 2.82% 8.45% 0.00% 8.45% 1.41% 12.68% 4.23% 9.86% Extradition Other 9.09% 4.55% 13.64% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 13.64% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 36.36% 4.55% 4.55% Extradition Waived 2.15% 0.00% 5.38% 1.08% 9.68% 0.00% 2.15% 0.00% 3.23% 1.08% 52.69% 4.30% 18.28% Remand CRB: REMAND 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100 0.00% 0.00% Remand 2.22% 8.80% 1.67% 6.10% 9.23% 26.05% 8.85% 1.76% 0.95% 6.75% 18.26% 1.63% 7.72% Transferred Transferred 13.04% 0.87% 0.00% 6.09% 0.87% 66.96% 0.00% 0.87% 3.48% 0.00% 5.22% 0.00% 2.61% Unavailable System Missing 0.00% 0.00% 40.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 59.26%

41

Table A.5. Components of sentence populated in cases with convicted disposition

Table name Variable name Description N % populated Court Confinement TotalTermHours Number of hours of confinement 72 <1% after suspensions or credits Court Confinement TotalTermDays Number of days of confinement 21,149 29% after suspensions or credits Court Confinement TotalTermMonths Number of months of confinement 25,319 34% after suspensions or credits Court Confinement TotalTermYears Number of years of confinement 22,021 30% after suspensions or credits Court Confinement LifeTerm Life term confinement before 72 <1% suspensions and credits Court Confinement TermYears Number of years of confinement 19,499 26% before suspensions and credits Court Confinement TermMonths Number of months of confinement 25,702 35% before suspensions and credits Court Confinement TermDays Number of days of confinement 14,462 20% before suspensions and credits Court Confinement TermHours Number of hours of confinement 20 <1% before suspensions and credits Court Probation ProbationTotalDays Number of days ordered to 26,219 35% probation after suspensions and credits Court Probation ProbationTotalMonths Number of months ordered to 35,473 48% probation after suspensions and credits Court Probation ProbationTotalYears Number of months ordered to 35,475 48% probation after suspensions and credits Court Probation ProbationTermDays Number of days ordered to 10,822 15% probation before suspensions and credits Court Probation ProbationTermMonths Number of months ordered to 17,916 24% probation before suspensions and credits Court Probation ProbationTermYears Number of years ordered to 27,063 37% probation before suspensions and credits Any sentence type 60,929 82% populated Total N 74,039

42

Table A.6: Sentence Completeness by year Year % of cases with a conviction but % of cases with a conviction that Total N no sentence do not have a sentence date with conviction 2012 88.4% 87.5% 112 2013 6.3% 3.0% 12,142 2014 7.3% 4.4% 12,304 2015 9.9% 7.2% 10,570 2016 9.4% 6.8% 9,545

Table A.7: Sentence Completeness by Judicial Districts Judicial % of cases with a conviction but % of cases Total N with conviction District no sentence with a conviction without a sentence date 1 2.9% 2.2% 3,521 2 16.4% 9.4% 13,269 3 3.6% 2.9% 4,895 4 4.2% 4.2% 803 5 2.9% 2.4% 6,179 6 3.4% 2.2% 1,575 7 6.5% 5.5% 905 8 8.1% 4.3% 1,266 9 3.2% 2.6% 2,176 10 3.8% 3.3% 338 11 4.6% 2.1% 4,103 12 11.8% 10.7% 2,650 13 8.1% 6.5% 2,993

43

Table A.8. Mutually exclusive number and combination of categories of difference Single Category Charge 1,832 51% Personal Identifier 535 15% Personal Attribute 277 8% Disposition 224 6% Other 86 2% No Reason Found 76 2% Probation 16 <1% Sentence 2 <1% Total cases with single source of difference 3,048 85% Two Categories Personal Identifier and Charge Information 129 4% Personal Attribute and Charge Information 65 2% Charge Information and Disposition 48 1% Personal Attribute and Personal Identifier 47 1% Personal Identifier and Other 37 1% Disposition and Other 28 1% Personal Attribute and Other 18 1% Charge Information and Other 14 <1% Disposition and Personal Attributes 7 <1% Disposition and Personal Identifier 3 <1% Personal Attribute and Sentence 2 <1% Total cases with two sources of difference 398 11% Three Categories Personal Attribute, Personal Identifier, and Other 37 1% Personal Attribute, Personal Identifier, and Charge 26 1% Information Personal Identifier, Charge Info, and Other 21 1% Personal Attribute, Charge Information, and Other 15 <1% Disposition, Personal Attributes, and Charge Information 4 <1% Disposition, Personal Identifier, and Charge Information 4 <1% Disposition, Personal Attribute, and Other 3 <1% Disposition, Charge Information, and Other 2 <1% Disposition, Personal Identifier, and Other 1 <1% Total cases with three sources of difference 113 3% Four Categories Personal attribute, Personal Identifier, Charge Information, 14 <1%% and Other Disposition, Personal Attributes, Charge Information and 5 <1%% Other Total cases with four sources of difference 19 1% Total duplicated cases 3,578

44

Table A.9: How Sentences with Multiple Charges are Recorded by Judicial District

Judicial District

How Sentence is is Sentence How Recorded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Charge specific 73.4% 2.8% 71.2% 60.0% 84.4% 38.5% 50.0% 28.6% 60.0% 0.0% 88.9% 11.8% 33.3% Total sentence 26.7% 4.2% 25.8% 0.0% 15.6% 46.2% 50.0% 42.9% 20.0% 100.0% 11.1% 47.1% 66.7% repeated on each line Total sentence 0.0% 93.0% 3.0% 40.0% 0.0% 15.4% 0.0% 28.6% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 41.2% 0.0% recorded once N 15 71 66 5 45 13 2 7 10 1 9 17 9

Table A.10: How Sentences with Multiple Charges are Recorded by Year How Sentence is Recorded Year 2012 or prior 2013 2014 2015 2016 Charge specific 31.8% 43.1% 66.1% 51.6% 71.4% Total sentence repeated on 29.4% 25.9% 11.3% 20.0% 7.1% each line Total sentence recorded 38.8% 31.0% 22.7% 28.3% 21.4% once N 85 58 53 60 14

45

Appendix B. Examples of Sentence Errors with Confinement Total Table B.1. Problem with confinement total, example 1. Problem: Must know all concurrent cases exist to get correct sentence; would have to refer back to J&S Case Number Date Case information Case in our sample: 11/03/15 D-00001 Additional cases referenced in J&S: D-00002 D-00003 From J&S Recorded in automated data Sentence D-00001 D-00001 Count 1: 3 years Count 1: 3 years Count 4: 18 months Count 4: 18 months Count 6: 18 months Count 6: 18 months Count 8: 18 months Count 8: 18 months D-00002 D-00002 Count 2: 18 months Count 2: 18 months D-00003 D-00003 Count 1: 18 months Count 1: 18 months Consecutive/concurrent All charges/cases consecutive All charges/cases consecutive Suspended Time 2 years 6 months D-00001 None listed D-00002 1 year D-00003 18 months PSC 230 days None listed Total Time 8 years – 230 days From case 1: 7.5 years From case 2: 6 months From case 3: None Notes about confinement PSC not listed in automated data; would not know total sentence unless you knew all cases involved.

46

Table B.2. Problem with confinement total, Example 2 Problem: J&S documentation leads to erroneous data entry Case Number Date Case information D-00004 11/8/16 From J&S Recorded in auto data Sentence Count 1: 18 months Count 1: 18 months Count 2: 364 days Count 2: 364 days Consecutive/concurrent Concurrent Concurrent Total Enhancement 1 year Missing variable, but accounted for in total Suspended Time 1 year 5 months Count 1: 1 year, 5 months Count 2: 364 days PSC 168 days, not applied to confinement Count 1: 168 days Count 2: None Total Time Adds up to 1 year 30 days because of the Count 1: 1 year 1 month enhancement before PSC. Count 2: None listed Confinement location New Mexico Department of Corrections Notes The judge ordered a 1 year enhancement with Count Even though the PSC was recorded, it was not 1, so the total for Count 1 should be 2 years, 6 months applied to the total time, as appropriate in before suspensions. The narrative says 30-day this case. The automated data reflects what sanction with remainder of 1 yr 5 month suspended so is recorded in the J&S, but the judge’s the math doesn’t add up. intention was to have a 30-day sanction. The confinement amount was fixed in a later entry to reflect the judge’s intention of a 30 day sanction. If we did not receive the updated data and did not read the J&S, we would assume the defendant was sentenced to serve 1 year, 1 month.

47

Table B.3. Problem with confinement total, Example 3.

Problem: Doesn’t include recorded suspensions; PSC is included but not in the data we have Case Number Date Case information D-00005 3/13/13

From J&S Recorded in auto data Sentence Count 1: 18 months (electronic monitoring) Count 1: 18 months Count 2: 18 months Count 2: 18 months Consecutive/concurrent Consecutive Consecutive Total Enhancement 4 years (in abeyance) None Suspended Time 18 months (count 2) “All” flag is populated PSC 301 applied to electronic monitoring None listed Total Confinement Time 246 on electronic monitoring Count 1: 8 months, 4 days Count 2: 9 months, 28 days Total Probation Time Count 1: 8 months, 2 days Count 2: 1 year, 6 months Location Electronic monitoring, Adult Probation and Parole New Mexico Department of Corrections Notes It appears the PSC of 301 days was accounted for in Count 1 even though it was not listed in the dataset; the “all” suspended flag was not reflected in the total amount for either charge. There must be another field for credits that we do not have. It is unclear why second charge has a different amount than the first charge. Without looking at the J&S, we would assume this person was to serve 17 months and 32 days in the NMCD. A probation amount was also recorded. Count 1 excludes the PSC, but count 2 does not.

48

Table B.4. Problem with confinement total, Example 4. Problem: PSC not recorded in variables we have, but included in total; recorded suspensions not reflected in total; concurrent/consecutive charges/cases do not add up to total in J&S Case Number Date Case information Case in our sample: 04/05/13 D-00006 (concurrent) Additional case from J&S: D-00007 (consecutive) From J&S Recorded in auto data Sentence D-00006 D-00006 Count 1: 36 months Count 1: 36 months Count 2: 36 months Count 2: 36 months Count 4: 18 months Count 4: 18 months Count 5: 36 months Count 5: 36 months Count 7: 36 months Count 7: 36 months Count 8: 36 months Count 8: 36 months Count 9: 36 months Count 9: 36 months Count 13: 36 months Count 13: 36 months Count 14: 18 months Count 14: 18 months D-00007 D-00007 Count 1: 18 months Count 1: 18 months Concurrent/consecutive D-00006 D-00006 All counts concurrent Count 1: both concurrent and consecutive D-00007 Count 2: concurrent Consecutive Count 4: none listed Count 5: concurrent Count 7: both concurrent and consecutive Count 8: concurrent Count 9: both concurrent and consecutive Count 13: concurrent Count 14: concurrent D-00007 Count 1: Consecutive

49

Total Enhancement Each of the “basic” sentences enhanced by 4 years Missing variable (habitual) 1 year (firearm), to be held in abeyance Suspended Time 4.5 years “All” flagged for count 4 and 14; remaining suspension variables not populated PSC 370 days None Total Time 8 years – 370 days: Listed: 6 years, 360 days D-00006 Count 1: 1 year 11 mos 26 days Count 2: 3 years Count 4: 1 year 6 mos (suspend all flagged, not reflected in total confinement) Count 5: 3 years Count 7: 1 year 11 mos 26 days Count 8: 3 years Count 9: 1 year 11 mos 26 days Count 13: 3 years Count 14: 1 year 6 months (suspend all flagged, not reflected in total confinement) D-00006 Count 1: 18 months

Consecutive (according to flags): D-00006 count 1, count 7, count 9; and D-00007 count 1, so total is approximately: 5 years, 11 months, 18 days for case 1 (just counting consecutive) plus second case: 7 years 5 mos, 18 days

Notes PSC not listed but reflected in data. Suspended “all” not reflected in total confinement. Sentences listed as both concurrent and consecutive. Separately, cases would result in

50

undercount of confinement, together, overcount.

Appendix C. Examples of Errors in Probation Total

Table C.1. Problem with probation total, Example 1.

Problem: Multiple cases, probation is not populated in all cases. Case Number Date Case information D-00001 11/03/15 D-00002 D-00003 From J&S Recorded in auto data Probation 2 years 6 months D-00001 None listed D-00002 1 year D-00003 1 year 6 months Notes about probation Must add probation amounts from different cases to get total; probation was missing from case we pulled into sample.

51

Table C.2 Problem with probation total, Example 2. Problem: J&S seems to indicate probation credits should be applied to probation term, but not applied Case Number Date Case information D-00008 6/24/15 D-00009 From J&S Recorded in auto data

Sentence summary D-00008 4 ½ years of probation, as originally imposed. No Deferred sentence revoked, sentence imposed and credit recorded. suspended (concurrent sentence with a maximum of 3 years) to run consecutively to D-00009. A new term of probation is imposed with all conditions of original probation.

“Probationary credit: Credit for all time served on original probation” seems to indicate that the individual should receive credit for this probation term. However, the order of probation does not have any credits listed. Presumably, the credits are to be applied to a possible future incarceration as this is a “new” probation term. Notes Unclear whether credits should be applied to probation.

52

Table C.3 Problem with probation amount, Example 3.

Problem: Probation amount incorrect, multiple cases

Case Number Date

Case information D-00010 8/27/13 D-00011 From J&S Recorded in auto data

Sentence Total of 3 years’ probation for both D-00010 cases (conditional discharge) 1 year probation D-00011 3 years probation Total Enhancement None None Suspended Time None None PSC None None Total Time 3 years 1 year in the case we were checking 3 years in second case Notes D-00010: Probation time incorrect in Case 1

53

Appendix D. Structure of cases and data format

Case

Cases are comprised of one or Each charge results in a Charge Charge Charge more criminal charges. disposition. Broadly, the charges can result in an acquittal, conviction, or dismissed. The disposition may be the same for each Acquitted Convicted Nolle Prosequi charge (e.g., the entire case Disposition Disposition Disposition is dismissed), or different (e.g., the prosecuting attorney dismisses a charge prior to adjudication, but the remaining charges Each charge resulting in a conviction has a remain until adjudicated). Sentence sentence.

The judge may order confinement, probation, or Confinement Probation Other some other form of punishment, such as a fine.

Figure D. 1 Diagram of the Composition of a Criminal Case

54

Figur e D.2 AOC Data Structure

Sample from Judgment, Sentence and order suspending sentence: …the Defendant having been convicted on March 25, 2015 pursuant to a plea of guilty and a plea and disposition agreement accepted and recorded by the court of the following crimes: Count 1: Unlawful withdrawal or use of ATM card, a fourth degree felony Count 2: Unlawful withdrawal or use of ATM card, a fourth degree felony Defendant is hereby guilty and convicted of said crimes, and is sentenced to be imprisoned by the Department of Corrections for a term of 18 months for each count. Said counts shall run consecutive for a total of 3 years. Execution of sentence I hereby suspended, and Defendant is ordered placed on supervised probation for a period of 3 years…counts 3 to 12 are hereby dismissed pursuant to plea agreement… In the AOC database, the data was recorded as seen below:

Case # Count Disposition Term Confinement Total Confinement Total # confinement Consecutive suspended confinement location probation years years years 25-2 1 Convicted 3 3 3 NMCD 3

25-2 2 Convicted

25-2 3 to 12 Nolle prosequi

In this case, the court recorded the sentence for the entire case under one of the charges resulting in a conviction. “Term” confinement and probation is the sentence before any suspensions or credits; “total” confinement and probation take into account these credits. There is an error here, because the suspended time is not taken into account, and instead, the total sentence reflects the amount prior to the suspended amount. The flag for consecutive sentence is not populated, likely because the sentence reflects the sum of both charges. Some other variables not shown here but are typically important to determining the entire sentence include flags for concurrent sentence, presentence confinement credit, and enhancements.

55

Appendix E. Glossary of Key Terms

Acquit

To free from accusation; to clear; to pronounce not guilty. Concurrent Sentence

Sentences of imprisonment for conviction of more than one crime, to be served at the same time, rather than one after the other. Consecutive Sentence

Successive sentences of imprisonment, one beginning at the expiration of another, imposed against a person convicted of two or more crimes. Conditional Discharge

When a defendant is granted a conditional discharge, no conviction or adjudication of guilt is entered. Instead, the defendant is placed on probation for a period of time. If successful, the person is discharged from probation and the charges against them are dismissed. A conditional discharge may be granted to a defendant who has not previously been convicted of a felony offense. Conditional discharges for first time misdemeanor drug offenses may also be granted. A defendant may only be granted one general conditional discharge and one drug conditional discharge. No conditional discharges are allowed for DWI cases.

Deferred Sentence

A sentence that is postponed to a future time. After conviction, the judge does not announce or impose a sentence, but defers sentencing to a future date so that the defendant will complete certain conditions, such as attending driving school or completing a probationary period. If the person completes the requirements, the case will be dismissed and will not be part of the defendant’s criminal record.

Dismissal An order or judgment disposing of a case without a trial. With prejudice In criminal cases, the defendant may not be charged with the specific crime again. A case is usually dismissed with prejudice when the court has not pursued action within the six-month time limit. In civil cases, the complainant is barred from bringing the same claim or cause of action against the same defendant. Without prejudice the person may be charged with the specific crime again. A case is usually dismissed without prejudice when more evidence is needed in a case or the case needs to be filed in another court

56

because of jurisdictional issues. In civil cases, the plaintiff is entitled to bring the same claim or cause of action again.

Disposition

Final settlement or result of a case, whether by dismissal, judgment, etc. Enhancements (sentence/probation)

Additional time added to the basic sentence. Judges typically order enhancements for firearms and habitual offender status. Face Validity

A subjective measure of validity that assesses whether something appears to measure what it intends to measure. Jurisdiction

The court’s legal authority to hear and resolve specific disputes. Jurisdiction is usually composed of personal jurisdiction (authority over persons) and subject matter jurisdiction (authority over types of cases.) Presentence confinement

Any time spent detained prior to the disposition of a court case.

Presentence confinement/probation credit

Amount of time the judge awards for time spent in presentence confinement. The judge can order credit to be applied to the post-adjudication confinement or probation sentence, but is typically applied to confinement.

Pretrial release

Release by sheriff’s personnel after arrest and before any court appearance, but with a court appearance date

Probation

Allowing a person convicted of a criminal offense to remain in the community rather than being incarcerated, so long as the person maintains good behavior, meets any special conditions imposed by the court, etc. Usually, a person placed on probation is under the supervision of a probation officer.

57

Revoke

To cancel or nullify a legal document.

Sentence

The judgment in a criminal action, following a verdict or a plea of guilty, stating the punishment to be inflicted.

Suspended Sentence

The practice of a court in placing a convicted person on probation, rather than sending him or her to jail or prison, although a conviction is recorded against that person. Sometimes referred to as "suspended execution of sentence." If the person violates probation, the original sentence can be imposed and the probation revoked.

SOURCES FOR GLOSSARY https://seconddistrictcourt.nmcourts.gov/glossary-of-legal-terms.aspx#/defendant http://jec.unm.edu/manuals-resources/glossary-of-legal-terms https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/conditional-discharge/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deferred-sentence/

58