The New Mexico Supreme Court issued a dispositional order of remand Wednesday in *Diggie v. Rios*, directing a lower court to reconsider a pro se petitioner's challenge to his continued sex offender parole supervision in light of the court's recent ruling in *Aragon v. Martinez*.
Shawn Diggie, representing himself from Las Cruces, had petitioned the high court for certiorari review of the Eleventh Judicial District Court's order denying his request for release from indeterminate sex-offender parole. Diggie argued that authorities failed to hold a timely duration review hearing as required under NMSA 1978, Section 31-21-10.1(C) (2007).
The case, filed under docket number S-1-SC-40810, had been held in abeyance since the Supreme Court ordered it stayed pending the court's disposition of the related *Aragon v. Martinez* case. That case, decided July 14, 2025, with mandate filed Aug. 18, 2025, addressed similar legal issues regarding sex offender parole supervision and duration review requirements.
In a brief dispositional order signed by Justice Michael E. Vigil, with concurrence from Chief Justice David K. Thomson and Justices C. Shannon Bacon, Julie J. Vargas, and Briana H. Zamora, the court noted that the *Aragon* opinion "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The court exercised its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)(1) NMRA to dispose of the case through a nonprecedential order rather than issuing a formal opinion. This procedural choice reflects the court's determination that the legal framework established in *Aragon* provides sufficient guidance for resolving Diggie's claims.
Diggie's original petition sought habeas relief, specifically requesting release from his indeterminate sex-offender parole supervision. Under New Mexico law, individuals subject to such supervision are entitled to duration review hearings to assess whether continued supervision remains necessary. The statute requires these reviews to occur within specified timeframes, and failure to conduct timely hearings can potentially serve as grounds for relief.
The case represents part of a broader pattern of challenges to New Mexico's sex offender supervision system. The *Aragon* decision, which the court referenced as providing the controlling legal standard, appears to have clarified procedural requirements and potential remedies when the state fails to comply with statutory mandates regarding duration reviews.
The remand order specifically directs the district court to "reconsider Petitioner's right to habeas relief in accordance with Aragon." This language suggests that the *Aragon* ruling may have established more favorable standards for petitioners seeking relief from indefinite parole supervision when procedural requirements have not been met.
Diggie's case highlights the challenges faced by pro se litigants navigating complex parole and post-conviction proceedings. Despite representing himself without counsel, Diggie successfully obtained certiorari review from the state's highest court, though the ultimate resolution of his claims will now depend on how the district court applies the *Aragon* framework to his specific circumstances.
The involvement of New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez's office as counsel for respondent Hector Rios, identified as warden, indicates the state's recognition of the case's potential implications for the broader administration of sex offender supervision programs.
The Supreme Court's decision to remand rather than resolve the case directly suggests that factual determinations or case-specific applications of the *Aragon* standard require further development at the trial court level. District Judge R. David Pederson, who initially denied Diggie's petition, will now reconsider the matter under the new legal framework.
The unpublished nature of the dispositional order, as noted in the court's standard disclaimer, means it cannot be cited as precedent under Rule 12-405 NMRA. However, the order's reference to *Aragon* paragraph 42 provides guidance for similar future cases involving challenges to sex offender parole supervision.
The timing of the remand, coming months after the *Aragon* mandate was filed, reflects the court's systematic approach to resolving related cases that had been held pending the resolution of that precedential decision. This practice helps ensure consistent application of legal standards across similar cases.
For Diggie, the remand represents a second opportunity to present his claims for relief from indeterminate parole supervision. The district court must now evaluate whether the procedural violations he alleges, viewed through the lens of the *Aragon* decision, warrant the relief he seeks.
The case underscores ongoing tensions in New Mexico's criminal justice system regarding the balance between public safety concerns and individual rights of those subject to extended supervision. As courts continue to interpret and apply statutory requirements for parole duration reviews, cases like *Diggie* will help shape the practical implementation of these important procedural protections.