The New Mexico Supreme Court issued a dispositional order Dec. 4 remanding Imperial v. State of New Mexico back to the Thirteenth Judicial District Court for reconsideration in light of the court's recent decision in Aragon v. Martinez.
Frankie Imperial, appearing pro se from Chaparral, New Mexico, had petitioned for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the district court's order that denied his request for release from indeterminate sex offender parole. Imperial argued he should be released as a remedy for the parole board's alleged failure to hold a timely duration review hearing as required by NMSA Section 31-21-10.1(C).
The case centers on complex questions of parole board jurisdiction and appropriate remedies when statutory requirements are not met. Imperial contended that the parole board lost jurisdiction by failing to conduct the required review hearing within the timeframes specified by New Mexico law.
Rather than immediately deciding Imperial's petition, the Supreme Court ordered the case held in abeyance pending its disposition of Aragon v. Martinez, a separate case that addressed similar legal issues. The court recognized that the outcome in Aragon would significantly affect the questions presented in Imperial's case.
The Supreme Court issued its opinion and mandate in Aragon on July 14, 2025, with the mandate filed Aug. 18. According to the dispositional order in Imperial, the Aragon decision "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."
In its Dec. 4 order, Justice Michael Vigil wrote that the court would remand Imperial's case to the district court "to reconsider Petitioner's right to habeas relief in accordance with Aragon." The order specifically references paragraph 42 of the Aragon decision as providing guidance for the district court's reconsideration.
The Supreme Court denied all other issues raised in Imperial's petition, focusing the remand specifically on the questions addressed by the Aragon precedent. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)(1) NMRA to dispose of the case through a nonprecedential order rather than issuing a formal published opinion.
This dispositional approach reflects the court's recognition that the legal framework established in Aragon provides sufficient guidance for resolving Imperial's case without the need for additional precedential analysis. The decision demonstrates how appellate courts manage related cases to ensure consistent application of newly established legal principles.
The case highlights ongoing challenges in New Mexico's sex offender parole system, particularly regarding compliance with statutory review requirements. Duration review hearings serve as critical checkpoints in the parole process, allowing for assessment of whether continued supervision remains necessary based on current circumstances and risk factors.
Attorney General Raúl Torrez's office represented the state and Hector Rios, identified as the warden, in opposing Imperial's petition. The state presumably argued that proper procedures were followed or that Imperial was not entitled to the relief he sought.
Imperial's pro se representation underscores the complexity of parole law and the challenges faced by individuals navigating the system without legal counsel. The case required understanding of both statutory interpretation and procedural requirements for challenging parole decisions through habeas corpus proceedings.
The Supreme Court's order notes that this decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports, following Rule 12-405 NMRA restrictions on citation of unpublished decisions. This limits the precedential value of the order itself, though the underlying Aragon decision remains binding precedent.
The remand means the district court must now reconsider Imperial's habeas petition with the benefit of the legal framework established in Aragon. This could potentially lead to a different outcome than the original denial, depending on how the Aragon principles apply to Imperial's specific factual circumstances.
For Imperial, the remand represents a second opportunity to obtain the relief he seeks. The district court will need to carefully analyze whether the Aragon decision supports his argument that he should be released from parole due to the alleged procedural failures.
The case reflects broader issues in parole administration and the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements designed to protect the rights of those under supervision while maintaining public safety. The outcome on remand could have implications for how similar cases are handled throughout New Mexico's parole system.