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 required to actively participate in and successfully complete any supervision or treatment program deemed appropriate by her probation officer. She was ordered to participate in the New Mexico Women’s Recovery Academy (NMWRA) program but was discharged due to misconduct, leading to the revocation of her probation (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish a violation of probation terms and contended that the district court erred in not imposing a STePS sanction instead of revoking probation (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Presented evidence of the Defendant's misconduct leading to her discharge from the NMWRA program, which was deemed sufficient to establish a violation of probation terms (paras 2-3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish a violation of the Defendant's probation terms.
• Whether the district court erred in revoking the Defendant's probation instead of imposing a STePS sanction.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court to revoke the Defendant's probation (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, Judge Julie J. Vargas, and Judge Megan P. Duffy, found the evidence presented by the State sufficient to establish a violation of the Defendant's probation terms. The Defendant was required to successfully complete a program deemed appropriate by her probation officer but was discharged due to misconduct. The Court referenced State v. Guthrie to support the sufficiency of evidence for probation revocation. Furthermore, the Court held that the district court had broad discretion in revoking probation and that its decision was statutorily authorized and within its discretion. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument for a STePS sanction, noting that her current probation agreement, which was violated, did not entail participation in the STePS program and was separate from a previous probation period associated with a different criminal matter. The Court declined to conflate separate probationary periods with different terms and conditions, thereby affirming the revocation of probation (paras 3-6).