Franklin v. Martinez

This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Filing Date: January 26, 2026

No. S-1-SC-40715

BRYCE FRANKLIN,

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD MARTINEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI
Richard M. Jacquez, District Judge

Kurt J. Mayer,
Albuquerque, NM

for Petitioner

Raúl Torrez, Attorney General
Sarah M. Karni, Assistant Solicitor General
Albuquerque, NM

for Respondent

DISPOSITIONAL ORDER TO QUASH

PER CURIAM.

{1} WHEREAS, this matter came before this Court on petition for writ of certiorari
under Rule 12-501 NMRA seeking review of the Third Judicial District Court’s order
denying Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus;

{2} WHEREAS, the Court having considered the petition and response thereto, and
being sufficiently advised, issued its writ of certiorari on April 23, 2025;
{3} WHEREAS, the parties filed briefs, and oral argument was heard on December
9, 2025;

{4} WHEREAS, the Court having considered the briefs and arguments of the parties,
concludes that Petitioner has failed to establish there is a constitutionally protected
property interest in acquiring property through the New Mexico Corrections
Department’s (NMCD) inmate property policy under Article II, Sections 4 and 18 of the
New Mexico Constitution;

{5} WHEREAS, the Court further concludes that Petitioner did not argue before the
Court whether he had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in acquiring property
through the NMCD policy, and therefore the Court will not address that issue, see In re
Adoption of Doe, 1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (explaining the
Court will not address issues not presented with argument and supporting authority);

{6} WHEREAS, the Court exercises its discretion under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA to
dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion;

{7} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the writ of certiorari issued April 23,
2025, is QUASHED.

{8} IT IS SO ORDERED.

DAVID K. THOMSON, Chief Justice

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice

C. SHANNON BACON, Justice

JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice

BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice