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 2011, the Defendant was on supervised probation for three years following guilty pleas to larceny and DWI (4th offense) under terms that included not violating any laws and not consuming alcohol. On August 13, 2011, the Defendant was involved in a vehicle accident where his girlfriend, who was driving his truck, flipped the vehicle, resulting in her serious injuries. Unopened beer cans were found in the truck, and the police suspected the Defendant had been drinking. Consequently, the State filed a motion to revoke the Defendant's probation for consuming alcohol and endangering another person (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that the Defendant violated his probation by consuming alcohol and endangering the person of Katherine Houk, his girlfriend, who was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident (paras 3, 13).
• Defendant-Appellant: Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the consumption of alcohol and the endangerment of Katherine Houk. Raised constitutional challenges regarding the notice and vagueness of the probation conditions (paras 9-13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish with reasonable certainty that the Defendant consumed alcohol in violation of his probation terms.
• Whether the Defendant endangered the person of Katherine Houk by allowing her to drive while intoxicated, thus violating his probation terms.
• Whether the probation condition related to endangering another person is unconstitutionally vague and whether the Defendant had sufficient notice of the conduct that constituted a violation of this condition (paras 9-10, 12-13).

Disposition

• The district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation was affirmed (para 17).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Michael E. Vigil, Timothy L. Garcia, and M. Monica Zamora, found that the evidence presented at the revocation hearing was sufficient to establish with reasonable certainty that the Defendant had consumed alcohol, in violation of his probation terms. This conclusion was based on the testimony of Katherine Houk, who witnessed the Defendant drinking, and Officer Duran, who testified that the Defendant admitted to drinking alcohol before the accident. The Court did not need to resolve the issues related to endangering Katherine Houk, as the violation of the condition not to consume alcohol was sufficient to affirm the revocation of probation. The Court also addressed the Defendant's constitutional challenges regarding the vagueness of the probation condition and the sufficiency of notice but found these arguments unavailing. The decision to revoke probation was not seen as an abuse of discretion by the trial court (paras 1-16).