The sentencing brought relatives of Isaiah Montoya and Ernie Estrada into court nearly two years after the men were found dead.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Bernadette Armijo was sentenced to 16 years in prison after pleading guilty to second-degree murder in the deaths of Isaiah Montoya and Ernie Estrada, closing one part of a double-homicide case that began when the two men were found dead inside an Albuquerque-area home in October 2024.

The Aug. 3 sentencing placed the focus on the families of Montoya, 24, and Estrada, 46, as relatives addressed the court about what the killings had taken from them. One of the most pointed statements came from Montoya’s sister, who said her family had recently learned information suggesting Armijo had wanted her brother’s gold teeth. She told the court Armijo “wanted his gold teeth as a trophy,” an allegation she said made it difficult for the family to accept any suggestion that Armijo went to the home without an intention to kill. The statement was presented as the sister’s understanding of information that emerged during the case, rather than as a separately established court finding about motive.

Armijo’s sentence followed a guilty plea to second-degree murder and marked the first completed sentencing among the defendants publicly linked to the deaths. Bernalillo County authorities said the court imposed a 23-year sentence that included a firearm enhancement and suspended seven years, leaving 16 years for Armijo to serve in the New Mexico Corrections Department. Earlier in the prosecution, Armijo had faced more serious charges, including first-degree murder, aggravated burglary, tampering with evidence and several conspiracy counts. Her guilty plea resolved those charges against her under the terms accepted by the court and shifted the case from determining her criminal responsibility to determining her punishment.

The case began on the night of Oct. 20, 2024, when Bernalillo County sheriff’s deputies were called to a residence at 1250 Atrisco Drive SW. Authorities found Montoya and Estrada dead there. Early public information about the case was limited, and arrests did not follow immediately. Investigators continued working for months before law enforcement announced a series of arrests in February 2025. That gap between the killings and the arrests became an important part of the case’s timeline: families were left waiting while detectives gathered evidence, conducted interviews and worked to identify the people they believed were involved.

Israel Tijerina was arrested first, on Feb. 19, 2025. Armijo was arrested the following day, and Jay Kriling was taken into custody on Feb. 21, according to law enforcement reporting at the time. The allegations against the three were not identical when they were first arrested. Authorities initially said Tijerina faced a murder charge and a tampering-with-evidence allegation, while Armijo was accused of conspiracy to commit murder and tampering with evidence. Kriling was initially described as facing conspiracy to commit murder and aggravated battery allegations. Those early charges reflected the status of the investigation at the time and were later followed by further court proceedings and, in Armijo’s case, a plea to second-degree murder.

Reporting based on the criminal complaint said investigators believed Armijo helped orchestrate an attack involving one of the victims. Deputies also cited a jail call involving Tijerina and Armijo and said Kriling possessed information specific to the homicides. Those details were allegations used during the investigation and pretrial process; the separate cases then moved through the court system on different tracks. Prosecutors sought to keep the defendants in custody while the cases were pending. Armijo ultimately chose to resolve her case through a guilty plea rather than take the charges to trial, meaning the evidence against her was not tested in a jury trial.

By the time Armijo appeared for sentencing, the legal posture of the case had changed substantially from those first arrest announcements. Her admission to second-degree murder meant the court no longer had to determine whether prosecutors could prove the allegations against her beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. The hearing instead gave the judge an opportunity to impose the agreed or authorized punishment and allowed the victims’ relatives to describe the effects of the deaths. Victim-impact statements do not replace evidence used to establish guilt, but they give families a formal place in the sentencing process to explain loss, grief and the continuing consequences of a crime.

Montoya’s sister used that opportunity to challenge how Armijo’s role should be understood. Her account of the alleged interest in Montoya’s gold teeth was especially significant because it addressed what the family believed about Armijo’s state of mind before the killings. The sister said the family had closely followed the case for roughly 22 months before learning that detail. Her statement did not change the offense to which Armijo had pleaded guilty, but it illustrated the gap that can remain between a negotiated legal resolution and a family’s understanding of the conduct that led to a death. For the relatives, sentencing was not only about the number of years imposed; it was also one of the first opportunities to address Armijo directly in court after a lengthy investigation and prosecution.

The resolution of Armijo’s case does not end the broader prosecution. Tijerina’s case remains pending. Reporting on the court record said he faces two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of aggravated burglary, four conspiracy counts, tampering with evidence and a charge involving possession, receipt or transportation of a firearm by a felon. Proceedings in his case were paused while he underwent a competency evaluation. Competency proceedings concern whether a defendant is presently able to understand the court process and assist in a defense; they are separate from the question of whether the defendant committed the charged offenses. The available reporting said prosecutors had sought another hearing, while the murder charges remained unresolved.

Kriling’s case is also moving on a different schedule. A New Mexico Second Judicial District Court calendar showed that he appeared for a change-of-plea hearing on April 8, 2026, with the calendar noting that a resolution had been reached. Subsequent reporting said Kriling pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 27. Unlike Armijo, therefore, Kriling had reached a plea agreement but had not yet received his final sentence as of Sept. 20. His coming hearing represents another major step for the families, but it will still leave Tijerina’s pending case to be resolved separately.

The differing paths of the three cases show why Armijo’s 16-year sentence is a significant milestone without being the final chapter. The October 2024 deaths led first to a months-long investigation, then to arrests and an evolving set of allegations, and eventually to guilty pleas by two defendants. Armijo is now the first of those defendants to begin serving a sentence tied to the killings. The punishment also gives the families a concrete result after a long period in which the case was defined largely by investigation, pretrial hearings and uncertainty about how each defendant’s case would end.

For Montoya’s and Estrada’s relatives, however, the court proceedings remain unfinished. Armijo has been sentenced, Kriling awaits his Oct. 27 sentencing and the first-degree-murder case against Tijerina remains pending. No verdict has been reached on Tijerina’s unresolved charges, and he remains entitled to the presumption of innocence unless those charges are proven or resolved by a plea. The next confirmed major proceeding connected to the killings is Kriling’s sentencing, while Armijo is set to serve 16 years in state prison for the second-degree-murder conviction.

Author note: Last updated September 20, 2026.