Court Opinion

ID: 9626238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:06:19.583473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:24.137542
License: Public Domain

HENDLEY, Judge (Specially Concurring). I agree with the result reached by the majority. My special concurrence is directed at Bertrand v. New Mexico State Board of Education, 88 N.M. 611, 544 P.2d 1176 (Ct.App.1975). Bertrand made a gratuitous statement not necessary to the holding when speaking to rehabilitation. It stated, “and the parents’ perception of her as a person with whom they would trust their children.” This language was of obvious concern to the hearing examiner, Mr. Tupler, because in his letter to counsel, he stated: Under Bertrand v. New Mexico State Board of Education, 88 N.M. 611, 544 P.2d 1176 (1976) [sic], probative evidence of rehabilitation includes “ * * * the parents’ perception of [the teacher’s] her as a person with whom they would trust their children.” Id at 614. I find this statement perplexing. How the perception of others relates to one’s “rehabilitation” seemingly is a curious proposition at best. The evidence fairly supports the conclusion that if Mr. Garcia even needed rehabilitation to begin with, his conduct at the Forsenic [sic] Unit made it virtually a foregone conclusion. By this comment, I do not suggest that I look with askance at the jury’s decision finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact of Mr. Garcia’s conviction is not an issue in this case, irrespective of the final disposition of dismissal by the convicting court. Nevertheless, since rehabilitation includes the parental perceptions of teachers, I find that Mr. Garcia has not been sufficiently rehabilitated to warrant the issuance of a certificate. How he can gain the trust of parents in the future sufficient to justify a certificate must go unanswered. I would add that from the evidence it is apparent that he has done all that he can do to rehabilitate himself. In my view, the very definition of rehabilitation and the purposes set forth in the Criminal Offender Employment Act, NMSA 1978, Section 28-2-2 (Repl.Pamp. 1983), do not speak to “[h]ow the perception of others relates to one’s ‘rehabilitation.’ ” It was this language in Bertrand which has led others astray. It is obvious from the record that this was the focus of the state before the hearing officer. It was relying on witnesses who dealt with the “perception of others.” It is further obvious from the findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by the Board, that they, too, dealt with the perception of others. It was the language in Bertrand which caused the problem of misleading the parties. In Bertrand there was sufficient evidence of lack of rehabilitation without adding the “perception of others.” If I read the majority correctly, they are overruling that part of Bertrand dealing with the “perception of others.” In this, I agree.