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 with a condition prohibiting alcohol use after pleading no contest to multiple counts of criminal sexual penetration and receiving a conditional discharge. His probation was transferred to Georgia, where he was later charged with arson following a fire at his home and found intoxicated by the investigating officer. Although acquitted of arson, the State pursued probation revocation for alleged alcohol use. The Defendant admitted to consuming alcohol on the day of the fire to his probation officer after being extradited back to New Mexico. Subsequently, he again violated his probation by consuming alcohol, confirmed by positive urine tests and his admission (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant violated his probation conditions by consuming alcohol, supported by the testimony of probation officers and the Defendant's admissions.
• Defendant-Appellant (Donnell Cox): Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the probation violations and requested remand for resentencing if the evidence for the first violation was found insufficient but sufficient for the second (paras 1, 3-4, 7, 10-12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the Defendant's probation violations for consuming alcohol.
• Whether the Defendant should be remanded for resentencing if the evidence for the first probation violation was found insufficient but sufficient for the second (paras 6, 12).

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the district court's decisions to revoke the Defendant's conditional discharge and probation based on the sufficiency of evidence for both alleged probation violations (para 13).

Reasons

• Per ATTREP, J. (HANISEE, C.J., and WRAY, J., concurring):
  The Court held that the State met its burden of establishing the probation violations with reasonable certainty, citing testimony from probation officers and the Defendant's admissions as sufficient evidence. The Court applied an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the district court's decision to revoke probation.
  For the first probation violation, the Court found Officer Ramos' testimony about the Defendant's admission of alcohol consumption sufficient, rejecting the Defendant's challenge to the reliability of the testimony.
  For the second probation violation, the Court found the Defendant's signed admission and positive urine tests for alcohol sufficient evidence. The Court dismissed the Defendant's argument that his admission should have been disregarded because it was not notarized.
  The Court did not address the Defendant's request for resentencing on the second probation violation, as it found sufficient evidence supporting both violations (paras 6-12).