AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The petitioner, while serving a sentence in a New Mexico correctional facility, was found guilty of a disciplinary violation for possessing contraband (a razor blade). He alleged that his procedural due process rights were violated during the disciplinary hearing when exculpatory testimony from a corrections officer was excluded. This resulted in the forfeiture of 90 days of Earned Meritorious Deductions and 60 days in disciplinary segregation, delaying his release to parole and probation (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• First Judicial District Court, January 26, 2006: Dismissed the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition as moot, finding that the petitioner had completed his incarceration and parole periods, and Earned Meritorious Deductions could not apply to probation (paras 10-11).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that the forfeiture of Earned Meritorious Deductions and inability to earn additional deductions during disciplinary segregation delayed his release to parole and probation, rendering his current incarceration illegal. He contended that his procedural due process rights were violated during the disciplinary hearing (paras 4, 9, and 11).
• Respondent: Asserted that the petition was moot because the petitioner had completed his incarceration and parole periods, and Earned Meritorious Deductions could not retroactively apply to probation. The respondent relied on the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Aragon v. Shanks to support this argument (paras 8-10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the petitioner’s habeas corpus claim was moot given that he had completed his incarceration and parole periods.
• Whether the alleged procedural due process violation during the disciplinary hearing impacted the petitioner’s current incarceration (paras 11 and 17).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the district court’s dismissal of the habeas corpus petition and remanded the case for a full hearing on the merits (para 25).

Reasons

Per Serna J. (Bosson C.J., Maes, and Chávez JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the petitioner’s claim was not moot because the alleged procedural due process violation impacted his current incarceration. If the petitioner’s forfeited Earned Meritorious Deductions were restored, he could be eligible for release earlier than his current projected release date (paras 17-18, 22-24).
• The Court rejected the respondent’s reliance on Aragon v. Shanks, finding that the Tenth Circuit misinterpreted New Mexico law by failing to recognize the “dual credit” system, where time served on parole is credited toward probation. The Court clarified that the petitioner’s delayed release to parole and probation affected both periods concurrently (paras 17, 21-23).
• The Court emphasized that the petitioner was not seeking to retroactively shorten his probation period but rather to restore the deductions he had earned during incarceration. This restoration would not alter the mandatory probation period but would credit the petitioner for time served (paras 22-24).
• The Court also noted that even if the claim were moot, it would fall under the exception for issues “capable of repetition yet evading review,” as similar cases are likely to arise in the future (para 16).