The New Mexico Supreme Court issued a dispositional order of remand Nov. 20 in *Emord v. Martinez*, directing the Second Judicial District Court to reconsider a sex offender's challenge to how his parole duration is calculated for review hearing eligibility.
Edward Emord, representing himself pro se from Chaparral, New Mexico, petitioned the high court seeking review of the district court's order that denied his request to include time serving in-house parole when determining his eligibility for a duration review hearing under NMSA Section 31-21-10.1(B). The district court also declined to address Emord's request for release from indeterminate sex-offender parole as a remedy for the alleged failure to hold a timely duration review hearing.
The case involves the interpretation of New Mexico's sex offender parole statutes, specifically how different types of supervised release time should count toward meeting thresholds for duration review hearings. These hearings allow courts to review whether continued parole supervision remains necessary.
Emord argued that his time in in-house parole should be included in calculating his total supervision time for purposes of determining when he becomes eligible for a duration review hearing. The district court, presided over by Judge Britt Baca-Miller, rejected this argument and denied his request.
The Supreme Court's handling of the case demonstrates the complex procedural posture that has developed around sex offender parole issues in New Mexico. Initially, the court stayed *Emord* pending its disposition of *State v. Thompson*. After issuing an opinion and mandate in *Thompson* in November 2022, the court found that decision addressed some, but not all, of the legal issues Emord raised.
Following *Thompson*, the court vacated the stay but then held *Emord* in abeyance pending another case, *Aragon v. Martinez*. The court has now issued an opinion in *Aragon*, though the full citation details are not yet available in the public record.
This procedural history suggests the New Mexico Supreme Court has been working through a series of related cases involving sex offender parole calculations and review procedures. The court's careful sequencing of these decisions indicates it is developing a comprehensive framework for how these statutes should be interpreted and applied.
The remand order in *Emord* signals that the district court's original analysis may no longer be consistent with the legal standards established in *Thompson* and *Aragon*. By remanding rather than deciding the case outright, the Supreme Court is allowing the trial court to apply the new precedential guidance to Emord's specific circumstances.
Attorney General Raúl Torrez's office, represented by Assistant Attorney General Van Snow, defended the original district court decision. The state likely argued that existing parole calculation methods properly exclude in-house parole time from duration review eligibility determinations.
Emord's pro se representation highlights the challenges facing individuals navigating complex parole statutes without legal counsel. Sex offender parole cases often involve intricate calculations of supervision time, multiple statutory provisions, and evolving case law that can be difficult for non-lawyers to understand and argue effectively.
The case also illustrates the ongoing legal questions surrounding New Mexico's sex offender supervision system. Duration review hearings serve as a mechanism for courts to evaluate whether continued parole supervision serves public safety purposes or has become unnecessarily prolonged.
The Supreme Court's unpublished dispositional order means the decision cannot be cited as precedent under Rule 12-405 NMRA, limiting its broader application to similar cases. However, the underlying legal principles established in *Thompson* and *Aragon* will likely guide future parole duration disputes.
For Emord, the remand provides another opportunity to argue his case before the district court, now armed with the benefit of the Supreme Court's recent precedential decisions. The district court will need to reconsider both his request to include in-house parole time in duration calculations and his alternative request for release from parole supervision.
The case reflects broader questions about how states balance public safety concerns with individual rights in managing long-term supervision of sex offenders. As courts continue to interpret these statutes, the decisions will affect how parole duration is calculated for numerous individuals under similar supervision.
The remand ensures that Emord's case will receive fresh consideration under the current legal framework, potentially providing him with relief that was unavailable under the district court's original analysis. The outcome may also provide guidance for other individuals facing similar challenges to their parole duration calculations.