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 attend and complete counseling and treatment as part of the probation conditions. The State alleged that the Defendant failed to fulfill these conditions.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that the Defendant failed to attend and complete the required counseling and treatment, constituting a violation of the probation terms.
• Defendant-Appellant: Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that the violation of probation terms was willful. The Defendant also highlighted previous voluntary participation in counseling and treatment and contended that the probation officer did not specifically advise that the First Nations program was mandatory.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Defendant willfully violated the terms and conditions of probation.

Disposition

• The appeal for the revocation of probation was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judge James J. Wechsler, Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil, and Judge Timothy L. Garcia, unanimously affirmed the revocation of the Defendant's probation. The Court found that the State presented sufficient evidence that the Defendant failed to attend and complete the required counseling and treatment, which constituted a violation of the probation terms (paras 2-4). The Court also noted that the State's evidence was sufficient to give rise to a reasonable inference that the Defendant was aware of the requirement to attend and complete treatment, thereby shifting the burden to the Defendant to present evidence to excuse non-compliance (para 3-4). The Defendant's argument that the participation in counseling and treatment was initially voluntary and that there was a lack of specific advisement on the mandatory nature of the First Nations program was rejected. The Court concluded that the evidence of the Defendant's awareness of the probation terms at intake was sufficient, and no further specificity was required (para 5).