close
close

Parole request for former Las Cruces teacher Patrick Howard denied

Parole request for former Las Cruces teacher Patrick Howard denied

play

For the second time since March, 3rd Judicial District Judge Douglas Driggers reviewed a motion regarding the parole status of a former Las Cruces High School teacher who was convicted in 2021 of sexually assaulting his students.

At a hearing ordered by the New Mexico Supreme Court in July, Driggers rejected prosecutors' request to reinstate the five-year probation sentence of Patrick Howard, who was present in the courtroom Wednesday.

Two victims also spoke at the hearing – one testified by telephone, the other through a lawyer – as well as the mother of one of the victims.

In 2018, Howard was charged with four counts of sexual abuse of a minor and assault. According to court records, Howard pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a minor and assault in May 2021. The court agreed to a conditional discharge, five years of supervised probation, and sex offender treatment. He was not required to register as a sex offender. The probation was modified in 2022 to allow Howard to consume alcohol in moderation and possess firearms.

In his statement, Driggers said the original sentence allowed for a conditional release and that state law allows for five years' probation, but it is not mandatory.

More: Judge in Las Cruces to consider reinstatement of Patrick Howard's parole

Driggers also referred to the original March 21, 2024, hearing notice for consideration of a motion to terminate parole when he first ordered the revocation of Howard's parole, which was originally scheduled to end in 2026.

According to Driggers' order revoking Howard's probation, “the court finds that the Department of Corrections is in favor of this motion and that the defendant has paid all fines and fees. … The defendant has satisfactorily complied with the terms and conditions of his probation.”

In addition, at the March 21 hearing, the probation officer relied on the court's discretion regarding Howard's March 15, 2024, motion to terminate probation. Through the office of District Attorney Gerald Byers, the State concurred with the probation officer's recommendation.

On Wednesday, Driggers said, “Neither the Third District Attorney's Office nor the Adult Probation and Release Office objected to the defendant's motion to terminate probation. The state approved and signed the release order dated March 21, 2024.”

The Sun News had not received a comment from Byers at the time of publication.

“We strongly disagree with Judge Driggers' decision to terminate the probation of a convicted sex offender and will work with prosecutors to promptly appeal,” New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the disregard for the victim's rights in this case is emblematic of a larger problem in New Mexico's criminal justice system and underscores the urgent need for a new legal framework that provides them with the same legal protections as other litigants.”

Driggers listened to arguments from prosecutor Richard Wellborn and defense attorney James Darnell.

Darnell argued that prosecutors should have addressed the reinstatement of Howard's parole in March, rather than May 10, 2024. At that time, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez filed a petition against Driggers in the New Mexico Supreme Court, saying the termination of Howard's parole violated statutory requirements regarding a mandatory five-year parole for sex offenders, conditional release, and the victim's right to attend hearings and be heard under the Victim of Crime Act. The petition also asked that the district court's order be stayed immediately.

On the same day, Byers also filed a motion for re-sentencing.

The complaint also asked for an immediate stay of the district court's order. On May 20, the New Mexico Supreme Court granted a stay that placed Howard back on probation. But on July 18, the New Mexico Supreme Court lifted the stay and denied the motion for a writ of summons. Driggers was ordered to review Byers' motion.

Wellborn argued that because Howard pleaded guilty to sexually abusing a minor, he is classified as a sex offender and is required by law to serve at least five years on probation. He also argued that the victims were not given timely notice of the termination hearing, as required by law, and that Driggers' decision to release Howard from probation violated the victims' constitutional rights.

“The court has no authority to reduce probation or grant early release, even if the state has not asserted that right and has not informed the court of the legal situation,” Wellborn said. “We are trying to correct that error.”

Two victims ask the court to reinstate their probation

Howard's attorney filed a motion to terminate probation on March 15, 2024. On March 19, the court scheduled a hearing on that motion for March 21. Byers said at the time that this violated the victim's constitutional rights, which require the court to allow seven working days for victims to attend each hearing.

The issue of notifying victims of a trial became relevant again when Thursday's hearing, originally scheduled for August 1, 2024, was postponed so the state could give victims timely notice of a trial, as required by law. According to court records, the state did not give notice of the hearing until July 31, 2024. According to court records, not all victims were able to appear, but all have expressed a desire to appear if properly notified.

But on Thursday, two victims, who were 15 and 16 at the time of the attacks, asked Driggers to reinstate probation for the full five years. Both women currently live out of state.

“I want to make it clear that I have felt and continue to feel guilt when speaking about a crime that was committed against me,” one of the women said on the phone.

“It was not until many years later that I understood what had happened to me or what the motives behind it were. I was 15 at the time and should never have held hands with a boy, let alone understood that the behavior of my teacher and mentor towards me and other students was sexually motivated.”

The woman pointed out that Howard's original agreement did not include registration as a sex offender or prison time.

“The least he can do is live with the consequences for the entire duration of his probation. The least he can do is live with his actions and the consequences for the rest of my life,” the woman said on the phone.

Albuquerque-based attorney Mollie McGraw, who represented victims in a recent federal case, read testimony from a victim who was absent due to out-of-state college commitments. A jury awarded one victim $44 million in damages on March 11, just two weeks before Howard's probation was due to end.

“The evidence in this case has been clear for years and any doubt as to its authenticity has long been dispelled,” the victim's statement said. “Mr. Howard has publicly admitted that he sexually abused me and other young girls who were his students for his own sexual gratification. The fact that we are still having this conversation undermines not only my faith in the criminal justice system, but also my belief in basic human decency.”

Jason Groves can be reached at 575-541-5459 or [email protected]. Follow him on X @jjpgroves.

Related Post