Bernadette Armijo once faced first-degree-murder and conspiracy allegations before admitting second-degree murder in the deaths of two Albuquerque men.
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A prosecution that once exposed Bernadette Armijo to first-degree-murder allegations ended with a second-degree-murder plea and a 16-year prison term, illustrating how the legal case surrounding the deaths of Isaiah Montoya and Ernie Estrada changed between Armijo’s arrest and final sentencing.
Armijo, 51, was sentenced Aug. 3 in connection with the October 2024 killings of Montoya, 24, and Estrada, 46. Bernalillo County authorities said the court imposed a total sentence of 23 years with a firearm enhancement, then suspended seven years, leaving 16 years to be served in state prison. The sentence gave the case its first final punishment among the defendants publicly tied to both deaths. It also reflected the outcome of a plea process that was substantially different from the allegations facing Armijo as the investigation and prosecution developed.
When Armijo was first arrested in February 2025, authorities publicly described the case against her primarily in terms of conspiracy to commit murder and tampering with evidence. Later court proceedings placed more serious accusations before her, including first-degree murder, aggravated burglary, tampering with evidence and several conspiracy counts. She did not go to trial on those charges. Instead, she entered a guilty plea to second-degree murder, an admission that established her criminal responsibility under the negotiated resolution and made a jury trial unnecessary. The other allegations did not produce separate trial verdicts once the plea resolved her case.
The changing charges are important because arrest accusations, grand jury charges and final convictions describe different points in a criminal proceeding. An arrest can be based on allegations that investigators and prosecutors believe are supported by probable cause, while a conviction requires either proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial or a valid guilty plea. Armijo’s final criminal judgment rests on her plea to second-degree murder, not simply on the wider collection of allegations that appeared during the case. Her 16-year sentence therefore represents both an admission of serious criminal conduct and a narrower legal resolution than the first-degree-murder prosecution she previously faced.
The underlying case began Oct. 20, 2024, when Bernalillo County sheriff’s deputies responded to a home at 1250 Atrisco Drive SW and found Montoya and Estrada dead. Authorities later described the case as a double homicide involving gunfire. The investigation continued for months without announced arrests. In February 2025, law enforcement took Israel Tijerina, Armijo and Jay Kriling into custody on successive days. Officials credited a broader investigative effort that involved the sheriff’s office, a U.S. Marshals task force and personnel connected to the district attorney’s office.
Early reporting from the criminal complaint said investigators believed Armijo helped orchestrate an attack involving one of the victims. Deputies also cited information from a telephone conversation involving Armijo and Tijerina and alleged that Kriling knew details particular to the killings. Those investigative claims helped explain why authorities sought charges, but Armijo’s plea meant prosecutors were never required to present their entire theory to a trial jury in her case. A negotiated plea often resolves a prosecution without producing the kind of full evidentiary record that would emerge from weeks of testimony, cross-examination and jury deliberations.
That difference became especially visible during Armijo’s sentencing, when Montoya’s sister spoke about information the family said it had learned during nearly two years of following the case. She told the court that the family had learned Armijo allegedly wanted Montoya’s gold teeth as a trophy. The sister said the allegation made it difficult for her to believe Armijo had gone to the home without intending that her brother die. Her account offered a stark interpretation of Armijo’s purpose, but the allegation should be understood in its courtroom context: It was presented during a relative’s victim-impact statement and has not been identified in the reviewed public reporting as a separate factual finding by a jury.
The distinction does not diminish the role of the statement at sentencing. Once a defendant has been convicted by plea, victims and their families can address the court about the effects of the crime and the consequences they continue to experience. Those statements can put human context around a legal record that otherwise consists of charging documents, docket entries and plea terms. For Montoya’s family, the hearing allowed relatives to speak directly about what they believed they had learned and how those details affected their understanding of the killing. For the court, however, the formal basis for punishment remained Armijo’s second-degree-murder conviction and the sentencing terms governing that conviction.
The sentence itself also requires careful description. Authorities said Armijo received 23 years with seven years suspended, producing 16 years of incarceration. A suspended portion of a sentence is different from saying that only a 16-year sentence was imposed in the first instance. The distinction explains how the court could announce a longer total term while Armijo’s actual prison time under the sentence was reported as 16 years. She is to serve that custodial portion through the New Mexico Corrections Department. Public reporting reviewed for this story does not provide a basis for calculating an exact release date, so no such date can be reliably stated.
Armijo’s plea also does not determine the outcomes for the other defendants. Kriling separately reached a resolution in his case. A Second Judicial District Court calendar listed an April 8 change-of-plea hearing and noted that a resolution had been reached, and subsequent reporting said he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. His sentencing is set for Oct. 27. The fact that Armijo and Kriling entered pleas to the same degree of homicide does not require the court to impose identical sentences; sentencing can depend on the terms of individual agreements and the circumstances properly before the judge in each defendant’s case.
Tijerina remains in a different legal position because his charges have not been resolved by a conviction. Reporting lists two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of aggravated burglary, four conspiracy counts, tampering with evidence and a firearm-related charge against him. His case was paused for a competency evaluation. That process concerns whether he is presently capable of understanding the proceedings and working with his lawyer. It does not establish whether the state can prove the homicide allegations. Unless he pleads guilty or is found guilty at trial, he remains presumed innocent of those pending charges.
The different procedural paths have left the families with a case that has produced admissions of guilt but not a single ending. Armijo’s sentencing gives one final judgment. Kriling’s guilty plea resolves the question of his guilt under his agreement but leaves his punishment to be imposed. Tijerina’s case still requires resolution of the underlying charges. That means statements made during Armijo’s sentencing, no matter how significant to the families, cannot be treated as findings against a defendant whose own criminal case remains pending.
The plea structure also explains why some questions about the killings remain unanswered in the public record. A trial might have required prosecutors to present witnesses, physical evidence and a detailed narrative about planning, intent and the roles of each participant. Armijo’s guilty plea made that full presentation unnecessary. What is established is that she admitted second-degree murder in connection with the deaths of Montoya and Estrada and has been sentenced to serve 16 years. Claims about additional motives or conduct must remain attributed to the people or records that made them.
What Armijo’s judgment establishes is narrower than every allegation that surfaced during the investigation: She admitted second-degree murder and was ordered to serve 16 years. The plea ended the need for prosecutors to prove their broader case against her at trial, leaving some questions about the killings outside any jury verdict. Kriling’s admitted role will next be addressed at his Oct. 27 sentencing, while the accusations against Tijerina remain pending and must be resolved independently.
Author note: Last updated September 20, 2026.