This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Two sex offenders, one convicted of criminal sexual contact of a child and the other of sexual exploitation of children, were placed on indeterminate parole after serving their prison sentences. Both offenders did not receive timely parole duration review hearings as mandated by New Mexico law, which requires such hearings after five years of parole and at two-and-a-half-year intervals thereafter (paras 3-4, 9-10).
Procedural History
- District Court, November 30, 2021: Ordered the New Mexico Corrections Department to grant Jason Aragon an immediate duration review hearing but denied his request for immediate release (para 6).
- District Court, January 27, 2023: Ordered the Parole Board to provide Ronald Lusk a parole duration review hearing within 60 days (para 12).
- District Court, July 17, 2023: Discharged Ronald Lusk from parole and ordered his immediate release due to unconstitutional detention (para 12).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner (Jason Aragon): Argued for immediate discharge from parole due to the Parole Board's failure to hold timely duration review hearings, claiming jurisdictional loss and due process violations (para 8).
- Respondent (Richard Martinez, Warden): Contended that Aragon was not entitled to relief, arguing that parole duration review hearings were only required after serving five years in the community (para 5).
- Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that Lusk failed to demonstrate prejudice from the delayed hearing, limiting his relief to receiving a duration review hearing (para 13).
- Defendant-Appellee (Ronald J. Lusk): Asserted entitlement to immediate discharge from parole due to the Parole Board's failure to hold timely hearings (para 11).
Legal Issues
- Whether the failure to hold a timely parole duration review hearing entitles a sex offender to immediate release from parole.
- Whether the Parole Board's delay in conducting duration review hearings violated the offenders' right to procedural due process.
- Whether Section 31-21-10.1(C) is unconstitutional for allowing the executive branch to exercise judicial powers, being vague, increasing penalties without a jury finding, and violating double jeopardy (para 8).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico concluded that the failure to hold timely duration review hearings violated due process but did not automatically entitle the offenders to immediate release.
- The cases were remanded to the district court for evidentiary hearings to determine whether habeas corpus or other relief is appropriate (para 44).
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Thomson C.J., Bacon, Vargas, and Zamora JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the statutory requirement for timely parole duration review hearings is mandatory but not jurisdictional, meaning the Parole Board's failure to comply does not automatically strip it of jurisdiction (paras 18-22). The Court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test to determine that the delay in holding hearings violated the offenders' procedural due process rights, as it deprived them of the opportunity to contest the need for continued parole (paras 24-41). The Court emphasized that remedies for constitutional violations should be narrowly tailored and remanded the cases for evidentiary hearings to assess prejudice and appropriate relief (paras 42-44).