inmates and their attorneys. See id. ¶ 2. {12} Although inmates have a diminished expectation of privacy in prison, they are nonetheless protected by the provisions of the Abuse of Privacy Act. See generally Coyazo, 1997-NMCA-029, ¶¶8-16, 123 N.M. 200, 936 P.2d 882. Thus, to the extent that the district court below relied on Defendant’s 8, 189 (Ct.App.1972) (stating that this Court will affirm if the district court is right for any reason, as long as the opposing party had an opportunity to respond). {14} In determining whether Defendant’s telephone calls were recorded in violation of the Abuse of Privacy Act, the dispositive question in the present case is whether Defendant consented to the recording. See § 30-12-l(E)(3); see also Coyazo, 1997-NMCA-029, ¶9, 123 N.M. 200, 936 P.2d 882 (<HOLDING>). In Coyazo, our Court recognized that an
recognizing exception recognizing a childabuse exception to marital communications privilege recognizing that a partys prior consent  to the recording or monitoring of communications constitutes an exception to the abuse of privacy act recognizing the prior conviction exception of almendareztorres recognizing such an exception