The New Mexico Supreme Court ordered a district court to reconsider a sex offender's habeas petition in light of a recent precedential ruling that addresses remedies for delayed parole review hearings.
In a dispositional order filed Dec. 4, the high court remanded *Baca v. Richards* to the Second Judicial District Court for reconsideration following the court's July decision in *Aragon v. Martinez*. The case involves Geno Baca, a pro se petitioner seeking release from indeterminate sex-offender parole due to the state's failure to hold a timely duration review hearing.
Baca had petitioned for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the district court's order denying his request for release from parole. Under New Mexico Statutes Annotated Section 31-21-10.1(C), the state is required to conduct timely duration review hearings for sex offenders on indeterminate parole. Baca argued that the failure to hold such a hearing entitled him to release as a remedy.
The Supreme Court placed the case in abeyance while it decided the related *Aragon v. Martinez* case, which presented similar legal issues regarding appropriate remedies for untimely duration review hearings. The court issued its opinion in *Aragon* on July 14, 2025, with the mandate filed Aug. 18.
According to the dispositional order, the *Aragon* decision "addresses and significantly affects the issue of law presented in this case about the appropriate remedy for the failure to hold a timely duration review hearing." The court directed the district court to reconsider Baca's petition "in accordance with Aragon," specifically referencing paragraph 42 of that opinion.
The case represents the intersection of sex offender supervision laws and constitutional due process protections. New Mexico's sex offender parole statute requires periodic review of offenders serving indeterminate sentences to determine whether continued supervision is necessary. When these reviews are delayed, courts must determine appropriate remedies that balance public safety concerns with offenders' rights to timely legal processes.
Baca represented himself throughout the proceedings, filing his petition from Los Lunas. The state was represented by Attorney General Raúl Torrez's office. The original proceeding was overseen by District Judge Stan Whitaker.
The Supreme Court denied all other issues raised in Baca's petition, limiting its order to the remand on the timing issue affected by *Aragon*. Justice Michael Vigil wrote the dispositional order, with Chief Justice David Thomson and Justices Shannon Bacon, Julie Vargas, and Briana Zamora concurring.
The court exercised its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)(1) of the New Mexico Rules of Appellate Procedure to dispose of the case through a nonprecedential order rather than issuing a formal opinion. This procedural choice indicates the court viewed the matter as appropriate for summary disposition given the guidance provided by the *Aragon* decision.
The remand order requires the district court to apply the legal framework established in *Aragon* when reconsidering whether Baca is entitled to habeas relief based on the delayed duration review hearing. The specific remedy available to Baca will depend on how the district court interprets and applies the *Aragon* precedent to his circumstances.
Sex offender parole supervision in New Mexico involves complex statutory requirements designed to balance rehabilitation goals with public safety protection. Offenders serving indeterminate sentences remain under state supervision until reviews determine they no longer pose a risk that warrants continued parole. The timing requirements for these reviews serve both administrative efficiency and due process purposes.
The case highlights ongoing challenges in the state's sex offender supervision system, where resource constraints and administrative complexities can lead to delays in required legal processes. When such delays occur, courts must carefully weigh the competing interests of public safety, administrative feasibility, and offenders' constitutional rights.
For Baca, the remand represents another opportunity to argue for his release from parole supervision based on the state's failure to meet statutory timing requirements. The district court will now reconsider his petition with the benefit of the legal guidance provided by the Supreme Court's *Aragon* decision.
The outcome of the remanded proceedings could have broader implications for other sex offenders in similar situations where duration review hearings have been delayed. The application of *Aragon* to Baca's case may provide additional clarity on the scope and limits of remedies available when the state fails to meet its statutory obligations for timely parole reviews.
The case demonstrates the Supreme Court's approach to managing similar legal issues through coordinated decision-making, holding related cases in abeyance to ensure consistent application of legal principles across comparable situations.