SANTA FE – New Mexico's highest court ruled today that former state Taxation and Revenue Secretary Demesia Padilla's convictions for embezzlement were properly vacated because she was charged too long after the alleged crimes occurred.
The state Supreme Court unanimously rejected arguments by prosecutors for the State of New Mexico who sought to reinstate Padilla's convictions. The justices affirmed a decision of the Court of Appeals, which set aside her convictions on two second-degree felony counts of embezzlement.
In an opinion by Chief Justice David K. Thomson, the Court concluded that Padilla's case was not covered by a provision in state law that pauses or "tolls" the time limits on bringing charges after a crime occurred. Under certain circumstances, the tolling provision suspends the statute of limitations during the time between the dismissal of charges and later refiling.
Padilla served as a cabinet secretary in former Gov. Susana Martinez's administration and resigned in 2016.
Felony charges were filed in June 2018, alleging that Padilla had embezzled money from one of her accounting firm's clients. A district court in Santa Fe County dismissed the charges because they were filed in the wrong location. A grand jury in Sandoval County indicted her in August 2019. Padilla sought to dismiss the charges, contending they were filed after the statute of limitations expired for bringing second-degree felony charges within six years of the crimes. The embezzlement allegedly took place from Dec. 19, 2011 to Jan. 22, 2013.
The district court in Sandoval County allowed the criminal case to move forward, ruling that the statute of limitations was paused during the year between the dismissal of initial charges and the later indictment. Padilla was convicted by a jury in 2021, and appealed.
The Court of Appeals vacated the embezzlement convictions in a split decision in 2023. The court's majority concluded that a provision in law for suspending the statute of limitations did not apply in Padilla's case. The State asked the Supreme Court to review the decision.
In today's opinion, the Court clarified the tolling of the statute of limitations. The justices concluded that a tolling provision in state law – Section 30-1-9 – applied to second-degree felonies such as those brought against Padilla, but only when charges are brought within five years from the date of the original crime.
The Court reasoned that the five-year period in the tolling provision was not intended to exclude crimes with statutes of limitation longer than five years, such as second-degree felonies.
The justices rejected arguments by the state Department of Justice that the initial filing of charges in Santa Fe County stopped the statute of limitations in Padilla's case. Prosecutors contended the subsequent indictment and Padilla's convictions remained valid.
"If we were to accept the State's argument that filing an indictment alone tolls the statute of limitations, there would be no purpose in the language of Section 30-1-9(B)," the Court wrote, referencing the tolling provision for when charges are dismissed and later refiled.
Padilla's indictment in Sandoval County occurred more than six months after the statute of limitations expired for bringing charges against her, according to the Court.
The justices ordered the case back to the district court in Sandoval County and directed it to vacate Padilla's embezzlement convictions.
