Barker 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citation of unpublished decisions.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: November 20, 2025

No. S-1-SC-38796

CHARLES BARKER,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD MARTINEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI
Lucy Solimon, District Judge

Charles Barker
Pro se
Albuquerque, NM

for Petitioner

Raúl Torrez, Attorney General
Albuquerque, NM

for Respondent

DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF REMAND

VIGIL, Justice.

{1} WHEREAS, this matter came before the Court on petition for writ of certiorari
under Rule 12-501 NMRA seeking review of the Second Judicial District Court’s order
(1) denying Petitioner’s request to include his time serving in-house parole when
determining his eligibility for a duration review hearing under NMSA 1978, Section 31-
21-10.1(B) (2007), and (2) declining to reach Petitioner’s request for release from
indeterminate sex-offender parole as the remedy for failure to hold a timely duration
review hearing under Section 31-21-10.1(C);
{2} WHEREAS, the Court ordered that this case be stayed pending the Court’s
disposition of State v. Thompson, S-1-SC-38376;

{3} WHEREAS, the Court issued an opinion and mandate in State v. Thompson,
2022-NMSC-023, 521 P.3d 64 (mandate filed Nov. 18, 2022), which addressed some,
but not all, of the legal issues raised by Petitioner in this case;

{4} WHEREAS, the Court vacated the order staying this case pending Thompson,
id., and ordered that this case be held in abeyance pending the Court’s disposition of
Aragon v. Martinez, S-1-SC-39172;

{5} WHEREAS, the Court has now issued an opinion and mandate in Aragon v.
Martinez, ___-NMSC-___, ___ P.3d ___ (S-1-SC-39172, July 14, 2025) (mandate filed
Aug. 18, 2025);

{6} WHEREAS, the opinions in Thompson, 2022-NMSC-023, and Aragon, ___-
NMSC-___, address and significantly affect the issues of law presented in this case;
and

{7} WHEREAS, the Court exercises its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)(1) NMRA to
dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion;

{8} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the abeyance is VACATED and this
matter is REMANDED to the district court to reconsider Petitioner’s right to habeas relief
in accordance with Thompson, 2022-NMSC-023, ¶ 30, and Aragon, ___-NMSC-___, ¶
42.

{9} IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice

WE CONCUR:

DAVID K. THOMSON, Chief Justice

C. SHANNON BACON, Justice

JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice

BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice