The New Mexico Supreme Court issued a dispositional order of remand Nov. 20 in *LaCasse v. Rios*, sending a sex offender parole case back to the district court for reconsideration in light of a recent precedent-setting decision.
Rey Napoleon LaCasse, representing himself from Chaparral, New Mexico, had petitioned for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Third Judicial District Court's order denying his request for release from indeterminate sex-offender parole. LaCasse argued that authorities failed to hold a timely duration review hearing as required by New Mexico Statutes Section 31-21-10.1(C).
The case was held in abeyance while the Supreme Court resolved *Aragon v. Martinez*, a related matter that addressed similar legal issues regarding sex offender parole procedures. The court issued its opinion in *Aragon* on July 14, 2025, with the mandate filed Aug. 18, 2025.
Justice Michael E. Vigil wrote the dispositional order, noting 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 The court exercised its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)(1) to dispose of the case through a nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion.
The remand order directs the district court to "reconsider Petitioner's right to habeas relief in accordance with *Aragon*." This suggests the Supreme Court's decision in *Aragon* may have created new standards or clarifications that could affect LaCasse's claim for release from parole supervision.
Indeterminate sex-offender parole in New Mexico requires periodic duration review hearings to assess whether continued supervision remains necessary. State law mandates these reviews occur within specific timeframes, and failure to conduct timely hearings can potentially constitute grounds for relief from continued parole supervision.
LaCasse's pro se representation highlights the challenges faced by incarcerated individuals navigating complex legal proceedings without attorney representation. The case originated as an original proceeding on certiorari, meaning LaCasse petitioned the Supreme Court directly rather than appealing through intermediate courts.
The Third Judicial District Court, presided over by District Judge Douglas Driggers, initially denied LaCasse's request for release. The case was handled by Attorney General Raúl Torrez's office on behalf of respondent Hector Rios, identified as the warden.
The Supreme Court's decision reflects the interconnected nature of sex offender supervision cases in New Mexico's legal system. By holding *LaCasse* in abeyance pending *Aragon*, the court acknowledged that resolving the broader legal questions in *Aragon* would provide necessary guidance for similar cases.
The court's reference to paragraph 42 of the *Aragon* decision suggests that specific portion contains the legal standard or framework the district court must now apply when reconsidering LaCasse's habeas petition. While the exact contents of the *Aragon* decision are not detailed in the remand order, its impact appears substantial enough to warrant reconsideration of previously denied relief requests.
The dispositional order was unanimous, with Chief Justice David K. Thomson and Justices C. Shannon Bacon, Julie J. Vargas, and Briana H. Zamora all concurring. This unanimity suggests broad agreement among the justices that the *Aragon* precedent necessitated fresh consideration of LaCasse's claims.
The case illustrates the ongoing evolution of sex offender supervision law in New Mexico. Duration review hearings serve as safeguards to ensure continued parole supervision remains justified and proportionate to public safety needs. When these procedural protections are not properly implemented, courts must balance individual liberty interests against public safety concerns.
For LaCasse, the remand represents a second opportunity to present his arguments for release from indeterminate parole. The district court must now evaluate his claims under whatever new legal framework the *Aragon* decision established, potentially leading to a different outcome than the original denial.
The unpublished nature of this dispositional order, as noted in the header, means it cannot be cited as precedent in other cases under New Mexico appellate rules. However, the underlying *Aragon* decision that prompted the remand presumably carries precedential weight for future sex offender supervision cases.
The case underscores the importance of procedural compliance in sex offender supervision. When statutory requirements for duration review hearings are not met, the consequences can extend beyond individual cases to affect systemic practices across the state's parole system. The Supreme Court's intervention suggests these procedural requirements serve important due process functions that cannot be overlooked.
As the case returns to the district court, Judge Driggers will need to apply the *Aragon* standards to determine whether LaCasse's claims for habeas relief should be granted. The outcome may depend on how broadly or narrowly the district court interprets the Supreme Court's guidance and whether the specific facts of LaCasse's case align with the relief parameters established in *Aragon*.