AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was on probation when he allegedly violated state law by resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. This violation was purportedly evidenced by the Defendant running away from and struggling with officers during an attempt to handcuff him. The State moved to revoke the Defendant's probation based on this incident and possibly other violations, including a failure to report to probation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant violated his probation by resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer, supported by evidence including an officer's testimony and lapel video footage.
• Defendant-Appellant (Myrtis P. Hart): Contended that there was insufficient evidence to revoke his probation on the grounds of resisting arrest and failing to report to probation. Specifically argued the insufficiency of evidence regarding the resisting arrest charge and claimed the district court did not specify which law he violated that served as the basis for the probation revocation.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation based on the alleged violation of state law by resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer.
• Whether the district court's failure to specify which state law the Defendant violated as the basis for his probation revocation constituted an abuse of discretion.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation.

Reasons

• Per Hanisee, C.J., with Bogardus, J., and Yohalem, J., concurring:
  The Court found that the State had established with reasonable certainty that the Defendant violated a state law by resisting, evading, or obstructing a peace officer, as evidenced by the dispatched officer's testimony and lapel video footage (para 3).
  The Court concluded that the district court's failure to specify which state law the Defendant violated did not rise to an abuse of discretion, as the State's motion to revoke probation and the district court's order were sufficient to establish the basis for the probation revocation (para 3).
  The Court determined it was unnecessary to consider the Defendant's argument regarding the sufficiency of evidence for his failure to report to probation, as the violation for resisting arrest alone provided adequate grounds for revocation (para 4).
  The Court affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation, finding no abuse of discretion (para 5).