State v. Padilla (Unpublished Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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 computergenerated 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: July 24, 2023 No. S-1-SC-38919 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAVID PADILLA, Defendant-Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY Karen Townsend, District Judge Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Mark Lovato, Assistant Attorney General Maris Veidemanis, Assistant Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellant Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Tania Shahani, Appellate Public Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellee DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE VIGIL, Justice. {1} WHEREAS, this matter came before this Court on the State’s direct appeal under Rules 5-802(N)(1) and 12-102(A)(3) NMRA of the district court’s order granting Defendant David Padilla’s fourth amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and order for duration-review hearing under NMSA 1978, Section 31-21-10.1(C) (2007), which requires a duration-review hearing after five years served on supervised parole, on the grounds that Defendant was not entitled to this hearing because he had not yet served five years of supervised parole in “the community,” NMSA 1978, § 31-21-5(B) (1991, amended 2023); {2} WHEREAS, the Court placed this matter on the general calendar and ordered that this case be held in abeyance pending the Court’s disposition of State v. Thompson, 2022-NMSC-023, 521 P.3d 64; {3} WHEREAS, this Court has issued an opinion and mandate in Thompson, id.; {4} WHEREAS, the Court concludes that the issue of law presented in this case was addressed by the Court’s opinion in Thompson, id.; and {5} WHEREAS, the Court exercises its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)(1) NMRA to dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion; {6} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the abeyance is VACATED and the district court’s order granting Defendant’s fourth amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordering a duration-review hearing is AFFIRMED, and the matter is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with Thompson, 2022-NMSC-023. {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice WE CONCUR: C. SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
