BY MAIRE O’NEILL
maire@losalamosreporter.com

Although First Judicia District Judge Anastasia Martin stated in Court July 30, that clear and convincing evidence by the state showed that there was a willful violation of pretrial conditions of release by Timothy Pacheco when he went to the Motor Vehicles Department without permission from pretrial service while on house arrest, she tightened up those conditions;

https://losalamosreporter.com/2026/05/07/lapd-arrests-and-charges-tim-pacheco-with-28-counts-of-criminal-sexual-penetration-in-the-first-degree/

When the original conditions of release were imposed by Judge Martin, it seems that not everyone was listening to her directions when she told Pacheco that he was not allowed he was going to be hooked up with electronic monitoring prior to his release and that, “House arrest means house arrest. She told him, “You’re not going to the store. You’re not going to the gas station. You’re not even going across the street to your girlfriend’s residence. You’re on house arrest in your house”.

Judge Martin also told Pacheco in open court when his original conditions were set that he would be allowed to go to medical and counseling appointments, meet with his attorney and go to his court appearances as long as he obtained prior approval at least two days in advance from pretrial services. However, at the July 30 hearing on a motion to revoke Pacheco’s probation, his pretrial services supervisor Michael Sisneros did not appear to be aware of Judge Martin’s specific verbal instructions and Pacheco’s attorney Tom Clark did not seem to recall them. In response to Clark’s questioning, Sisneros agreed that he had given Pacheco exceptions from house arrest to go shopping and run errands, have groups of family members at his home for dinner and taken his elderly parents to their medical appointments.

Clark told the Court that the state had to show that Pacheco “willfully” violated his conditions of release. He noted that there are more than a dozen recordings of conversations between Sisneros and Pacheco where he was given permission to be out of the house for particulat amounts of time.

So when there was testimony that Pacheco had been seen at Smith’s Marketplace and at the MVD, Clark claimed that “everyone is in possession of his conditions of release, including Mr. Sisneros and so whether my client was compliant or not, he was checking in with Mr. Sisneros every time he needs to go someplace and he’s been given permission to be out”.

Mr. Clark noted that “Maybe the Court needs to be more clear about what is and isn’t allowable so there’s no dispute from here on out, but my client has done everything in his power to get permission to do the things that he is allowed to do”.

“Those were things he was allowed to do by Mr. Sisneros. We’re not blaming Mr. Sisneros for anything. And my client would always ask and get permission – sometimes he would be told yes, sometimes no, but he’s been compliant with everything Mr. Sisneros has asked him to do and not do,” Mr. Clark.

As an observer in the Court during Judge Martin’s Courtroom, the Reporter notes that the Judge is very clear on her conditions of release. The breakdown seems to be in whether or not all her remarks during a sentencing hearing are conveyed to pretrial services officials.

While requesting that Pacheco’s conditions of release be revoked, prosecutor Halee Murphy noted that Judge Martin that she was “unequivocal” on conditions of release during the original hearing.

“He is facing over 200 years of incarceration and the state, at this point intends to seek a significant amount of incarceration,” Murphy said, adding that the state agreed to house arrest with the intent that it would mirror incarceration and that Pacheco had been told he could only leave his residence for visit’s to Clark’s office or pre-trial services in Albuquerque or his own medical appointments.

“You told him to use Door Dash or his girlfriend for groceries. It was extraordinarily clear that the intent was not to have side excursions such as groceries or medical appointments for his parents,” Murphy said.

Murphy said that from the state’s perspective, Pacheco was “working the system in little ways”.

“I’m asking your honor to put a stop to that. This is a situation where we anticipated zero tolerance. He knows what he’s accused of doing to a young child….. He stepped out of line. We are asking you to revoke his conditions of release,” she said.

She noted that Pacheco has multiple other siblings who can assist with his parents. She said “his mother is an enabler who has been aware of ongoing family abuse for decades” and that he can get assistance from other individuals.

In response, Clark said Mr. Sisneros had given Pacheco permission in his position of pretrial services supervisor,

“I don’t remember the specifics of the first hearing, but they were all written down. We all have the conditions of release but when my client asked Mr. Sisneros….he gave permission,” Clark said. He claimed the probation violation was not willful, and that it provided the Court an opportunity to tighten the conditions of release and give directives as to what is and isn’t allowable.

“This is not a case of a willful violation that would justify Mr. Pacheco sitting in jail pending resolution of the case,” Clark said.

Judge Martin said the state had shown by clear and convincing evidence that there had been a willful conditions of release violation. She once again pronounced conditions of release, noting that house arrest is “just that” and hat the only exceptions were to visit Clark, pretrial services and his own medical appointments.

In a second motion before the Court, Mr. Clark sought permission for Pacheco to have internet for a list that included pleadings for his case, making medical appointments for himself and his parents, his retirement paperwork and more. Clark said Pacheco would not use the internet for “anything untoward” or social media.

While Judge Martin agreed that Pacheco could have his relative access his email for him, and said he would be willing to reconsider his request in 60-90 days if there hadn’t been any additional violations.

.