Introduction

When it comes to incarceration and parole, most would assume that the law functions as a clear blueprint—defining boundaries, responsibilities, and procedures to ensure due process and justice. However, a recent case out of New Mexico, Jason Aragon v. Richard Martinez, sheds light on the glaring deficiencies within the state’s parole system for individuals deemed “PFRs” (Persons Forced to Register, commonly referring to individuals on sex offender registries). At the center of this protracted legal battle lies a deeply flawed statute with no tangible remedies for noncompliance. The case reveals systemic failures and raises questions about justice, due process, and the purpose of parole supervision.

What happens when the law requires action but fails to define consequences for inaction? This blog post takes a deep dive into this important case to uncover how the New Mexico parole system not only failed Jason Aragon but illuminated larger concerns for anyone subjected to its jurisdiction. By the end, we’ll explore actionable lessons and a possible path forward.

The Backstory: Who is Jason Aragon, and What Is This Case About?

In March 2009, Jason Aragon entered a plea of no contest to the charge of criminal sexual contact with a child under thirteen, a second-degree felony. As a result, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison, with 12 years of the sentence suspended, leading to an actual term of 3 years in custody. Upon completing his prison term, Aragon began what New Mexico calls “indeterminate parole”—a system requiring individuals convicted of certain offenses to serve a minimum of 5 years and up to 20 years on supervised parole.

But here’s where things got murky. Per New Mexico statute 31-21-10.1, the parole board is required to conduct periodic reviews (initially after 5 years of parole and every subsequent 2.5 years) to determine whether continued parole supervision is necessary. In Aragon’s case? No such review occurred—for nearly 10 years. Without a periodic review, Aragon was effectively trapped in an open-ended parole loop.

Worse still, as highlighted in court filings, the statute provides zero accountability or consequences for the parole board if they fail to perform their legally mandated reviews. Instead of receiving the relief he sought—a discharge from parole—Aragon became entangled in a legal tug-of-war over vague statutory language, shifting burdens of proof, and the unresponsiveness of the system.

Plummeting Into “In-House Parole”: A Legal Quirk or Systemic Failure?

Before delving further into this case, we need to spotlight New Mexico’s concept of “in-house parole,” an unsettling quirk in its parole structure. Unlike the federal system—which includes reentry facilities and mandates the release of prisoners upon completing their custodial sentences—New Mexico allows individuals to remain incarcerated even after serving their time. This happens when a person on parole cannot secure an approved residence or meet other release requirements.

Jason Aragon found himself in this gray zone. Even after technically completing his sentence, he spent additional time incarcerated on so-called “in-house parole.” In practice, this means serving parole while still confined to a prison facility—a situation akin to incarceration but without the freedom of reentry into the community.

In New Mexico, nearly 300 individuals, primarily PFRs, are reportedly held in similar circumstances, unable to leave prison because they lack approved housing or the proper support systems. This raises troubling ethical and legal questions: Are these individuals still prisoners or parolees? And if they’re prisoners, shouldn’t this time count toward their maximum sentence rather than parole obligations?

What Went Wrong in Aragon’s Case? Key Legal Arguments

When it became clear that Aragon had not received any duration review hearings—contradicting the timeline required by law—his legal team filed for a writ of habeas corpus, demanding his immediate release from custody and discharge from parole. His key arguments included:

  1. Violation of Statutory Deadlines
    By failing to conduct a duration review after his initial 5 years on parole, the parole board violated New Mexico statute 31-21-10.1. With no review hearings held whatsoever, Aragon argued that the parole board forfeited its jurisdiction and his continued detention was unlawful.

  2. Due Process Violations
    Aragon contended that the state violated his constitutional right to due process. A system that predetermines prolonged parole without timely and meaningful review undermines his right to defend his case or argue for discharge.

  3. Separation of Powers and Judicial Overreach
    The petition also challenged the constitutionality of the parole statute, arguing that it improperly allowed the executive branch (via the corrections department) to exercise judicial powers in conducting parole reviews.

  4. Double Jeopardy Concerns
    Finally, Aragon claimed that the denial of timely hearings extended his parole unlawfully and placed him in a situation akin to being punished twice for the same offense.

The Supreme Court’s Decision: Disappointing for Reform Advocates

In November 2023, after years of litigation, the New Mexico Supreme Court issued its ruling. Disappointingly for Aragon and advocates for justice reform, the court sided with the parole board. The court concluded the following:

  • There was no jurisdictional penalty for the parole board’s failure to conduct timely review hearings. While the missed deadlines were acknowledged, the absence of a defined legal remedy in the statute meant the parole board retained authority over Aragon.

  • The statutory deadlines for reviews, while clear, were deemed non-binding without corresponding enforcement mechanisms. In effect, the court found that the law’s lack of accountability rendered it effectively advisory.

While the court’s decision followed the letter of the law, many argue it failed the spirit of justice. How can a law intended to ensure fairness and accountability remain toothless due to technical omissions?

Systemic Implications and Questions of Justice

The Aragon case exposes systemic flaws not just in how parole operates, but in how laws are written. Statutes that grant sweeping authority to parole boards without accountability mechanisms place vulnerable individuals at the mercy of a bureaucratic void. Furthermore, the normalization of systems like “in-house parole” threatens the fundamental principles of liberty and rehabilitation. Key questions remain:

  • What Are the Broader Implications for PFRs?
    If this gap in accountability could allow parole boards to skirt statute-defined responsibilities for PFRs, it begs the question—what’s next? Could similar issues arise in other states or for other categories of parolees?

  • Why Hasn’t the Law Been Updated?
    Decades after being written in a hurried special session, the statute remains riddled with gaps. Why hasn’t the legislature addressed these issues, especially given rising litigation?

Actionable Takeaways: Where Do We Go From Here?

  1. Lobby for Legislative Fixes
    Advocacy groups and reformers must push for amendments to statutes like 31-21-10.1. New laws should establish strict consequences for agencies that fail to comply with statutory timelines—whether through fines, loss of jurisdiction, or automatic termination of parole.

  2. Challenge “In-House Parole” Policies
    The concept of serving parole behind bars defies the purpose of community reintegration. Reform advocates must encourage the development of housing support programs or halfway houses to facilitate successful reentry.

  3. Increase Accountability Through Oversight
    Independent oversight bodies should be established with the authority to conduct regular audits and penalize parole boards or corrections agencies for noncompliance.

Conclusion

The story of Jason Aragon reveals that New Mexico’s parole system, as it currently exists, does more to perpetuate injustice than to facilitate rehabilitation. By ignoring statutory guidelines and skirting accountability, state agencies not only compromise individual liberties but also erode public trust in the criminal justice system. While the court’s decision may have closed this chapter, it marks the beginning of a larger, much-needed conversation about parole reform and oversight.

As reform advocates rally for change, the ultimate question remains: when will New Mexico’s parole system start prioritizing both justice and public safety in equal measure? Until then, cases like Aragon’s are bound to repeat themselves, leaving countless others trapped in a maze of legal ambiguity and institutional neglect.