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 dismissed from the La Pasada Program due to unauthorized use of an EBT card, leading to a probation revocation proceeding. The State filed an amended petition alleging four separate probation violations, but the district court dismissed three and focused solely on the La Pasada Program violation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the probation violation and claimed that the term of imprisonment imposed exceeds his sentence due to insufficient sentencing credit.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Acknowledged the need for a recalculation of the Defendant's sentencing credit under the facts of the case.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation.
• Whether the term of imprisonment imposed by the district court exceeds the Defendant's sentence due to not awarding him sufficient sentencing credit.

Disposition

• The revocation of the Defendant's probation was affirmed.
• The case was remanded to the district court for recalculation of the sentencing credit due to the Defendant.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Jane B. Yohalem, found the testimony of Mr. Darrell Agnes, the program director of La Pasada, credible and sufficient to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation on grounds of willfulness (para 5). The Court also agreed with both parties that a recalculation of the Defendant's sentencing credit was necessary, acknowledging the State's agreement with the Defendant on the need for recalculation and their slightly differing calculations of the credit due (para 6). The decision to affirm the probation revocation and remand for recalculation of sentencing credit was based on the sufficiency of evidence regarding the probation violation and the mutual acknowledgment of the need for sentencing credit adjustment (paras 3-7).