Emord v. Martinez

This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer- generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Filing Date: November 20, 2025 No. S-1-SC-38798 EDWARD EMORD, Petitioner, v. RICHARD MARTINEZ, Warden, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI Britt Baca-Miller, District Judge Edward Emord Pro se Chaparral, NM for Petitioner Raúl Torrez, Attorney General Van Snow, Assistant Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Respondent DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF REMAND VIGIL, Justice. {1} WHEREAS, this matter came before the Court on petition for writ of certiorari under Rule 12-501 NMRA seeking review of the Second Judicial District Court’s order (1) denying Petitioner’s request to include his time serving in-house parole when determining his eligibility for a duration review hearing under NMSA 1978, Section 31- 21-10.1(B) (2007), and (2) declining to reach Petitioner’s request for release from indeterminate sex-offender parole as the remedy for failure to hold a timely duration review hearing under Section 31-21-10.1(C); {2} WHEREAS, the Court ordered that this case be stayed pending the Court’s disposition of State v. Thompson, S-1-SC-38376; {3} WHEREAS, the Court issued an opinion and mandate in State v. Thompson, 2022-NMSC-023, 521 P.3d 64 (mandate filed Nov. 18, 2022), which addressed some, but not all, of the legal issues raised by Petitioner in this case; {4} WHEREAS, the Court vacated the order staying this case pending Thompson, id., and ordered that this case be held in abeyance pending the Court’s disposition of Aragon v. Martinez, S-1-SC-39172; {5} WHEREAS, the Court has now issued an opinion and mandate in Aragon v. Martinez, ___-NMSC-___, ___ P.3d ___ (S-1-SC-39172, July 14, 2025) (mandate filed Aug. 18, 2025); {6} WHEREAS, the opinions in Thompson, 2022-NMSC-023, and Aragon, ___- NMSC-___, address and significantly affect the issues of law presented in this case; and {7} WHEREAS, the Court exercises its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)(1) NMRA to dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion; {8} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the abeyance is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED to the district court to reconsider Petitioner’s right to habeas relief in accordance with Thompson, 2022-NMSC-023, ¶ 30, and Aragon, ___-NMSC-___, ¶ 42. {9} IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice WE CONCUR: DAVID K. THOMSON, Chief Justice C. SHANNON BACON, Justice JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice