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citation of unpublished decisions.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dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion;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