Franklin 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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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: January 26, 2026 No. S-1-SC-40715 BRYCE FRANKLIN, Petitioner, v. RONALD MARTINEZ, Warden, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI Richard M. Jacquez, District Judge Kurt J. Mayer, Albuquerque, NM for Petitioner Raúl Torrez, Attorney General Sarah M. Karni, Assistant Solicitor General Albuquerque, NM for Respondent DISPOSITIONAL ORDER TO QUASH PER CURIAM. {1} WHEREAS, this matter came before this Court on petition for writ of certiorari under Rule 12-501 NMRA seeking review of the Third Judicial District Court’s order denying Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus; {2} WHEREAS, the Court having considered the petition and response thereto, and being sufficiently advised, issued its writ of certiorari on April 23, 2025; {3} WHEREAS, the parties filed briefs, and oral argument was heard on December 9, 2025; {4} WHEREAS, the Court having considered the briefs and arguments of the parties, concludes that Petitioner has failed to establish there is a constitutionally protected property interest in acquiring property through the New Mexico Corrections Department’s (NMCD) inmate property policy under Article II, Sections 4 and 18 of the New Mexico Constitution; {5} WHEREAS, the Court further concludes that Petitioner did not argue before the Court whether he had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in acquiring property through the NMCD policy, and therefore the Court will not address that issue, see In re Adoption of Doe, 1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (explaining the Court will not address issues not presented with argument and supporting authority); {6} WHEREAS, the Court exercises its discretion under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA to dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion; {7} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the writ of certiorari issued April 23, 2025, is QUASHED. {8} IT IS SO ORDERED.

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