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 the district court found that he had willfully violated the terms of his probation. This led to the revocation of his probation, imposition of a habitual offender enhancement, commitment to the Department of Corrections, and reinstatement of probation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's finding that the Defendant willfully violated his probation terms.
• Defendant-Appellant (Diego Rascon): Contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the district court’s determination that he willfully violated the terms of his probation, challenging the weight and credibility the district court placed on certain testimony and evidence.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that the Defendant willfully violated the terms of his probation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of the Defendant's probation.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J., with Stephen G. French, J., and Emil J. Kiehne, J., concurring: The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Michael E. Vigil, found the evidence presented was sufficient to incline a reasonable and impartial mind to the belief that the Defendant had violated the terms of his probation. The Court noted that appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses, which was the basis of the Defendant's argument against the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments, maintaining that the district court's decision was supported by sufficient evidence and thus affirmed the revocation of the Defendant's probation (paras 1-4).