N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 31 / Article 21
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 31-21-3 (2026)

Short title.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
Sections 31-21-3 through 31-21-19 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Probation and
Parole Act".

History: 1953 Comp., § 41-17-12, enacted by Laws 1955, ch. 232, § 1; 1963, ch. 301, §
1.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For inmate-release program, see 33-2-43 to 33-2-47 NMSA
1978.

For inapplicability of the Rules of Evidence to sentencing procedures, see Rule 11-1101
NMRA.

No contract between state and prisoner. — No act of the parole board can constitute
a contract between a prisoner and the state. Aragon v. Cox, 1965-NMSC-132, 75 N.M.
537, 407 P.2d 673.

Void order of parole is without force or effect to justify the release of a prisoner.
Aragon v. Cox, 1965-NMSC-132, 75 N.M. 537, 407 P.2d 673.

Law reviews. — For note, "Due Process, Equal Protection and the New Mexico Parole
System," see 2 N.M.L. Rev. 234 (1972).

For note, "Negligent Hiring and Retention - Availability of Action Limited By
Foreseeability Requirement," see 10 N.M.L. Rev. 491 (1980).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Propriety of conditioning probation on
defendant's remaining childless or having no additional children during probationary
period, 94 A.L.R.3d 1218.

Jury's discussion of parole law as ground for reversal for new trial, 21 A.L.R.4th 420.

Right of convicted defendant to refuse probation, 28 A.L.R.4th 736.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: State v. Trujillo, 877 P.2d 575 (N.M. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Trujillo, 877 P.2d 575 (N.M. 1994). · cites it 2× “Section 31-21-21 states in part that "[n]othing in the Probation and Parole Act [NMSA 1978, §§ 31-21-3 to -19 (Repl. Pamp.”
State v. Trujillo, 877 P.2d 575 (N.M. 1994). · cites it 2× “Section 31-21-21 states in part that “[n]othing in the Probation and Parole Act [NMSA 1978, §§ 31-21-3 to -19 (Repl. Pamp.”
State v. Chavez, 607 P.2d 640 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “At any time during release on parole the board or the director may issue a warrant for the arrest of the released prisoner for violation of any of the conditions of release, or issue a notice to appear to answer a charge of violation.”
State v. Begay, 2016 NMCA 039 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, §§ 31-21-3 to -19 (1955, as amended through 2013).”
State v. Acuna, 705 P.2d 685 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985). “The Act, by its express terms, requires a defendant to serve specific periods of parole. Section 31-21-10(C).”
State v. Begay, 2017 NMSC 9 (N.M. 2017). · cites it 2× “In light of NMSA 1978, Section 31-21- 5 (1991), which defines the terms as used in the Probation and Parole Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 31-21-3 to -19 (1955, as amended through 2016), we agree that Section 31-21-15(C) (1989) did not empower courts of limited jurisdiction to toll the…”
State v. Begay (N.M. 2017). · cites it 2× “In light of NMSA 1978, 6 Section 31-21-5 (1991), which defines the terms as used in the Probation and Parole 7 Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 31-21-3 to -19 (1955, as amended through 2016), we agree that 8 Section 31-21-15(C) (1989) did not empower courts of limited jurisdiction to toll the…”
Martinez v. Grisham (D.N.M. 2022). · cites it 2× “), Martinez raised claims similar to this case’s claims: “Plaintiff argues that the New Mexico Probation and Parole Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 31-21-3 to 19 creates an entitlement to determinate parole and that his parole term should therefore have ended before he was found in…”
State v. Benavidez (N.M. 2026). · cites it 2× “Aragon v. Martinez, 2025-NMSC-046 , ¶ 16, 580 P.”
Aragon v. Martinez (N.M. 2025). “3 {19} The Legislature has mandated that the Probation and Parole Act, NMSA 1978, 4 §§ 31-21-3 to -19 (1955, as amended through 2025), “shall be liberally construed to 5 the end that the treatment of persons convicted of crime shall take into consideration 6 their individual…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.