Imperial v. State

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citation of unpublished decisions.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: December 4, 2025

No. S-1-SC-40278

FRANKIE IMPERIAL,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, and
HECTOR RIOS, Warden,

Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI
Cindy M. Mercer, District Judge

Frankie Imperial
Pro se
Chaparral, NM

for Petitioner

Raúl Torrez, Attorney General
Albuquerque, NM

for Respondents

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 Thirteenth Judicial District Court’s order
denying, among other things, Petitioner’s request for release from indeterminate sex-
offender parole as the remedy for failure to hold a timely duration review hearing as
required by NMSA 1978, Section 31-21-10.1(C) (2007);
{2} WHEREAS, the Court ordered that this case be held in abeyance pending the
Court’s disposition of Aragon v. Martinez, S-1-SC-39172;

{3} WHEREAS, this 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);

{4} WHEREAS, the opinion in Aragon addresses and significantly affects the issues
of law presented in this case about whether the parole board lost jurisdiction by failing to
hold a timely duration review hearing and about the appropriate remedy for the failure to
do so;

{5} WHEREAS, the Court has reviewed the other issues raised in the petition and
concludes that they should be denied; and

{6} 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dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion;

{7} 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 Aragon, ___-NMSC-___, ¶ 42; and

{8} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other issues raised in the petition are
DENIED.

{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