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 failed to report to his probation officer on December 26, 2014. He asserts that his failure to report was due to being hospitalized on that day and subsequently finding the probation office had moved. Despite these circumstances, the Defendant did not report for 45 days and was eventually apprehended by the police (paras 5-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that there was sufficient evidence to establish by a reasonable certainty that the Defendant violated his probation by failing to report to his probation officer and by violating state law (para 2).
• Defendant-Appellant (Bobby Kenton): Contended that the State failed to establish that his violations were willful, arguing that his failure to comply with the reporting requirement was due to factors beyond his control, and therefore, his probation should not be revoked (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking the Defendant's probation based on insufficient evidence to support a violation.
• Whether the Defendant's failure to report to his probation officer was willful.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of the Defendant's probation (para 8).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge M. Monica Zamora, with Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil and Judge Linda M. Vanzi concurring, found that there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's determination that the Defendant violated his probation. The Court noted that once the State offers proof of a breach of a material condition of probation, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that his non-compliance was not willful. The Court concluded that the Defendant did not carry this burden. Despite the Defendant's hospitalization on the day he was supposed to report and his discovery that the probation office had moved, the Court found that these reasons did not account for the 45 days he failed to report, leading to a reasonable inference of willful non-compliance. The Court also dismissed the Defendant's contention regarding the visibility of the notice of change in address at the old office, stating that it was the Defendant's obligation to come forward with evidence demonstrating that his non-compliance was not willful (paras 4-7).