Franklin 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citation of unpublished decisions.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: August 26, 2024

No. S-1-SC-40172

BRYCE FRANKLIN,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, and
RONALD MARTINEZ, Warden,

Respondents-Appellants.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY
Conrad F. Perea, District Judge

Raúl Torrez, Attorney General
Walter Hart, Assistant Attorney General
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellants

Lalita Moskowitz
American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF REMAND

VIGIL, Justice.

{1} WHEREAS, in its September 21, 2023, order, the district court granted a writ of
habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing after finding that the prisoner policy at the
Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility failed to satisfy any of the Turner v. Safley,
482 U.S. 78 (1987) reasonableness factors, resulting in a deprivation of Appellee’s First
Amendment rights; and
{2} WHEREAS, on February 26, 2024, the Court granted the alternative relief sought
in the emergency petition for writ of superintending control, staying the district court's
September 21, 2023, order and enforcement of the writ of habeas corpus, pending the
resolution of this appeal; and

{3} WHEREAS, on February 8, 2024, the State filed its brief in chief, arguing that the
district court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing before issuing its September
21, 2023, order; and

{4} WHEREAS, on April 5, 2024, the Appellee filed a Non-Opposition to Remand,
stating that he is unopposed to this Court remanding this matter to the district court for
an evidentiary hearing; and

{5} WHEREAS the Court concludes that the State’s request for an evidentiary
hearing to enable the district court to make its findings of fact determinations is
unopposed and warranted; and

{6} WHEREAS, the Court, therefore, exercises its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)
NMRA to dispose of this matter by non-precedential order; and

{7} WHEREAS, the Court, having considered the foregoing and being sufficiently
advised;

{8} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Court’s February 26, 2024, order
staying the district court’s September 21, 2023, order and the enforcement of the district
court’s writ of habeas corpus in cause number D-307-CV-2022-01119 is WITHDRAWN;
and

{9} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the district court for
an evidentiary hearing and such further proceedings as may be warranted.

{10} 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