- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pioche v. State
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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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: December 4, 2025
No. S-1-SC-39918
DARNYLE PIOCHE,
Petitioner, v.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, and HECTOR RIOS, Warden,
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI
William Parnall, District Judge
Darnyle Pioche Pro se
Chaparral, NM for Petitioner Raúl Torrez, Attorney General Albuquerque, NM
for Respondents
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 denying, among other things, Petitioner's request for release from indeterminate sex- offender parole as the remedy for failure to hold a timely duration review hearing as required by NMSA 1978, Section 31-21-10.1(C) (2007);
1
{2} WHEREAS, the Court ordered that this case be held in abeyance pending the Court's disposition of Aragon v. Martinez, S-1-SC-39172;
{3} WHEREAS, this 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);
{4} WHEREAS, the opinion in Aragon 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;
{5} WHEREAS, the Court has reviewed the other issues raised in the petition and concludes that they should be denied; and
{6} WHEREAS, the Court exercises its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)(1) NMRA to dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion;
{7} 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 Aragon, ___-NMSC-___, ¶ 42; and
{8} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other issues raised in the petition are
DENIED.
{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
2
Alert