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 following a no contest plea to felony offenses. The State filed a motion to revoke this probation, alleging violations including failure to report to the probation officer as required, unauthorized change of residence, incurring new criminal charges, and failing to report a new arrest to the probation officer. The Defendant acknowledged not reporting to probation and changing his residence without permission, attributing these actions to a desire to avoid arrest and maintain involvement in his daughter's life (paras 4-6, 8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the probation violations were not willful, suggesting that his actions were driven by external pressures, specifically the fear of arrest and the desire to remain a part of his daughter's life (paras 6, 8).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant willfully violated probation conditions by failing to report to the probation officer, changing residence without permission, incurring new criminal charges, and not reporting a new arrest to the probation officer (paras 4, 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation on the grounds that the violations were willful.

Disposition

• The district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation was affirmed (para 11).

Reasons

• Judges Megan P. Duffy, Jacqueline R. Medina, and Zachary A. Ives concurred in the opinion. The court applied an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the district court's decision to revoke probation, emphasizing that the State must prove a probation violation with reasonable certainty and that the violation was willful. The court found that the State met its burden, supported by the Defendant's admissions and the probation officer's testimony. The Defendant's argument that his violations were not willful due to fear of arrest was not persuasive to the court. The court reasoned that a willful violation does not require the conduct to be beyond the Defendant's control or without fault. The court concluded that the evidence sufficiently established a willful violation of probation conditions by the Defendant (paras 1-10).