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

• In 2001, the Defendant was indicted for the 1988 kidnapping, rape, and murder of Kathryn Dockweiller, an Albuquerque attorney. He pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and kidnapping under a plea agreement. After serving approximately five years of his nineteen-year sentence (nine of which were suspended), he was released on probation in 2008. Shortly thereafter, the State alleged probation violations, leading to the revocation of his probation and his return to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Carl J. Butkus, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, December 11, 2014, No. 34,939.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the requirement to sign a sex offender behavior contract was an illegal condition of probation, that there was insufficient evidence to support the probation violations found by the district court, and that the images found on his laptop lacked a proper foundation and should have been inadmissible (para 8).
• Appellee: Maintained that the crimes of conviction, alongside the Defendant's prior murder conviction, justified the probationary supervision received. Asserted that probation authorities have broad discretion to supervise probationers with conditions deemed appropriate and that the conditions of probation were reasonably related to the Defendant's rehabilitation (paras 6, 9-14).

Legal Issues

• Whether the conditions of probation imposed upon the Defendant, including the requirement to sign a sex offender behavior contract, were legal and reasonably related to his rehabilitation.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation based on alleged violations.
• Whether the images found on the Defendant's laptop were admissible as evidence to support probation violation claims (paras 8-9, 21, 27).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of the Defendant's probation (para 1).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring): The court held that the conditions of probation, including the sex offender behavior contract, were authorized by the district court and within the purview of the probation authorities' discretion. It was determined that the conditions were reasonably related to the Defendant's rehabilitation, considering his criminal history and the nature of his crimes. The court found sufficient evidence to support the probation violations, particularly the possession of pornographic images, which violated the terms of the sex offender behavior contract. The court also dismissed the Defendant's argument regarding the admissibility of the images, noting that the rules of evidence do not apply to probation revocation hearings. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the Defendant's probation (paras 9-32).