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 placed on supervised probation after entering a no contest plea to several charges, including possession of a firearm by a felon and resisting an officer. A condition of the probation required the Defendant to obtain permission before leaving the county of supervision. The State filed a petition for revocation of probation, alleging the Defendant violated this condition by being in Otero County without permission.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove a violation of probation conditions and claimed a due process violation due to the manner of evidence presentation.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the evidence, including the probation officer's actions and testimony, was sufficient to establish the Defendant's probation violation and argued that the Defendant did not preserve the due process argument for appeal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation.
• Whether the Defendant's due process rights were violated in the presentation of evidence by the State.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and order revoking probation.

Reasons

• Per WECHSLER, J. (KENNEDY, J., and VANZI, J., concurring), the court found the State provided sufficient evidence to prove the Defendant violated probation conditions by being in Otero County without permission. The court relied on the probation officer's testimony and the procedural actions taken to issue an arrest and hold warrant as circumstantial evidence of the Defendant's presence in Otero County. The court also addressed the Defendant's due process argument, concluding it was not preserved for appeal because the Defendant failed to object on due process grounds at the district court level. The court applied a standard of review that views evidence in the light most favorable to the State and requires a rational trier of fact to be persuaded by the evidence presented. The court distinguished this case from others requiring proof of willfulness in probation violations, noting that the evidence sufficiently showed the Defendant's willful violation of probation conditions.