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 and was required to complete a court-ordered treatment program at Step House. The Adult Probation & Parole Officer (APPO) White testified that the Defendant failed to complete this program, leading to the revocation of his probation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish a violation of probation terms, contended that the State's failure to call a witness from the treatment program violated his right to due process, and objected to APPO White's video testimony as a violation of due process. Additionally, the Defendant asserted that more specific testimony identifying him was required.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Supported the probation revocation, arguing that APPO White's testimony was sufficient to establish the Defendant's violation of probation terms and that the failure to call a witness from the treatment program and allowing video testimony did not violate the Defendant's due process rights.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation.
• Whether the State's failure to call a witness from the treatment program violated the Defendant's right to due process.
• Whether permitting APPO White to testify via video violated the Defendant's due process rights.
• Whether more specific testimony identifying the Defendant was required in the probation revocation hearing.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, upholding the revocation of the Defendant's probation.

Reasons

• Per BOGARDUS, J. (IVES and YOHALEM, JJ., concurring):
  The Court found APPO White's testimony that the Defendant failed to complete the court-ordered treatment program sufficient to establish a violation of probation terms (para 3).
  The Court held that the State was not required to call a witness from the treatment program, aligning with precedent that such testimony is not necessary for proving routine, objective facts like non-completion of a program (para 4).
  The Court concluded that allowing APPO White to testify via video did not violate the Defendant's due process rights, considering the nature of probation revocation proceedings and the uncontested, neutral nature of the testimony (para 5).
  The Court determined that the Defendant's identity was sufficiently established without the need for more specific testimony, citing precedent that a defendant's voluntary court appearance and representation by counsel suffices in probation revocation hearings (para 6).