The New Mexico Supreme Court issued a dispositional order on Nov. 20 remanding *Gonzales v. State of New Mexico* to the district court for reconsideration in light of the court's recent decision in *Aragon v. Martinez*. The case involves David Gonzales, a pro se petitioner challenging his continued supervision under indeterminate sex-offender parole.
Gonzales filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Twelfth Judicial District Court's order that denied his request for release from indeterminate sex-offender parole. Gonzales argued that his release should be granted as a remedy for the state's failure to hold a timely duration review hearing as required by NMSA 1978, Section 31-21-10.1(C) (2007).
The Supreme Court had previously ordered that Gonzales' case be held in abeyance pending the court's disposition of *Aragon v. Martinez*, a related case that addressed similar legal issues. The court issued its opinion and mandate in *Aragon* on July 14, 2025, with the mandate filed Aug. 18, 2025.
According to the dispositional order signed by Justice Michael E. Vigil, the opinion in *Aragon* "addresses and significantly affects the issue of law presented in this case." The court exercised its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)(1) NMRA to dispose of the case through a nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion.
The court vacated the abeyance and remanded the matter 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 the guiding standard for the district court's reconsideration.
New Mexico's sex offender parole system requires periodic duration review hearings to assess whether continued supervision remains necessary. Under NMSA 1978, Section 31-21-10.1(C), these hearings must be conducted within specific timeframes. When the state fails to hold timely reviews, offenders may seek judicial relief, including potential release from supervision.
The case highlights the procedural complexities surrounding sex offender supervision in New Mexico. Indeterminate parole supervision can continue indefinitely, subject to periodic review, making the timing of duration hearings crucial for both public safety and individual rights.
Gonzales represented himself throughout the proceedings, filing from Chaparral, New Mexico. Attorney General Raúl Torrez represented the state respondents, including Warden Richard Martinez. The original proceeding came before the Supreme Court through certiorari review of District Judge Steven E. Blankinship's ruling.
The Supreme Court's decision reflects the interconnected nature of sex offender supervision cases in New Mexico's appellate system. By holding Gonzales' case in abeyance pending *Aragon*, the court ensured consistent application of legal principles across similar cases.
The dispositional order was unanimous, with all five justices concurring. Chief Justice David K. Thomson and Justices C. Shannon Bacon, Julie J. Vargas, and Briana H. Zamora joined Justice Vigil's order.
This decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports, making it an unpublished opinion with limited precedential value under Rule 12-405 NMRA. The court noted that electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version.
The remand directs the district court to reconsider Gonzales' habeas corpus petition in light of the legal standards established in *Aragon*. This reconsideration will determine whether the state's alleged failure to conduct timely duration review hearings entitles Gonzales to release from supervision.
The case underscores ongoing challenges in New Mexico's sex offender supervision system, where procedural requirements intersect with public safety concerns. Duration review hearings serve as safeguards ensuring that continued supervision remains justified and proportionate.
For Gonzales, the remand offers a new opportunity to present his challenge to continued supervision. The district court must now apply the legal framework established in *Aragon* to determine whether procedural violations warrant habeas relief.
The Supreme Court's handling of this case demonstrates judicial efficiency in managing related appeals. By coordinating the timing of decisions in *Gonzales* and *Aragon*, the court avoided potentially conflicting rulings on similar legal questions.
Moving forward, the district court must carefully examine whether the state's conduct in Gonzales' case violates the standards articulated in *Aragon*. The outcome will affect not only Gonzales' supervision status but may influence how similar cases are resolved throughout New Mexico's judicial system.