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

• The Defendant, David Padilla, was granted a fourth amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and a duration-review hearing under NMSA 1978, Section 31-21-10.1(C) (2007), which mandates such a hearing after five years served on supervised parole. The State contested the district court's decision, arguing that the Defendant was not entitled to this hearing as he had not yet served five years of supervised parole in "the community" as per NMSA 1978, § 31-21-5(B) (1991, amended 2023) (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant was not entitled to a duration-review hearing because he had not yet served five years of supervised parole in "the community" as required by law (para 1).
• Defendant-Appellee (David Padilla): Successfully obtained a fourth amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and a duration-review hearing, presumably arguing entitlement under NMSA 1978, Section 31-21-10.1(C) (2007) (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant is entitled to a duration-review hearing after serving five years of supervised parole, despite not serving 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 Defendant’s fourth amended 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 decision in State v. Thompson, 2022-NMSC-023 (para 6).

Reasons

• VIGIL, Justice, with C. SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice, DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice, JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice, and BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice concurring:
  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 The Court exercised its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)(1) NMRA to dispose of the case by a nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion, indicating that the legal question had already been resolved in a manner that supported the district court's decision in favor of the Defendant. The matter was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the guidance provided in Thompson (paras 2-6).