AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Petitioner Jason Aragon was granted a petition for writ of habeas corpus by the district court, which also ordered a duration-review hearing under NMSA 1978, Section 31-21-10.1(C) (2007). This statute mandates a duration-review hearing after five years of supervised parole. The State appealed, arguing that Aragon was not entitled to this hearing as he had not yet served five years of supervised parole in "the community" as required by NMSA 1978, § 31-21-5(B) (1991, amended 2023) (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondents-Appellants (State of New Mexico, Richard Martinez, Warden): Argued that Petitioner was not entitled to a duration-review hearing because he had not yet served five years of supervised parole in "the community" as per the statutory requirements (para 1).
• Petitioner-Appellee (Jason Aragon): Successfully petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus and a duration-review hearing, implying an argument for entitlement to such a hearing under the relevant statute (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a duration-review hearing after serving five years of supervised parole, as mandated by NMSA 1978, Section 31-21-10.1(C) (2007), despite not having served five years of supervised parole in "the community" as defined by NMSA 1978, § 31-21-5(B) (1991, amended 2023) (para 1).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the district court’s order granting the Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordering a duration-review hearing. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court's opinion in State v. Thompson, 2022-NMSC-023 (para 6).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Justice, concurred by C. Shannon Bacon, Chief Justice, David K. Thomson, Justice, Julie J. Vargas, Justice, and Briana H. Zamora, Justice:
  The Supreme Court decided to affirm the district court's decision based on the precedent set in State v. Thompson, 2022-NMSC-023, which addressed the legal issue presented in this case. The Court exercised its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)(1) NMRA to issue a nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion, indicating that the legal question had already been resolved in a manner that supported the district court's ruling in favor of the Petitioner. The decision to affirm was unanimous among the justices (paras 2-6).