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 under a Community Custody Program (CCP), which included house arrest monitored by a GPS ankle bracelet. The State alleged that the Defendant violated his probation by cutting off his GPS ankle bracelet and failing to stay at his approved residence.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County: The district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation was affirmed.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that sufficient evidence existed to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation due to violations, including cutting off the GPS ankle bracelet and not staying at the approved residence.
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the evidence presented was too speculative to conclude that he had cut off his bracelet and that there was an absence of direct evidence proving he did not stay at his approved residence.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation for allegedly cutting off his GPS ankle bracelet and failing to stay at his approved residence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order revoking the Defendant's probation.

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, J. (Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, concurring): The Court held that sufficient evidence was presented to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation. The standard for proof of a probation violation was established with reasonable certainty, requiring that a reasonable and impartial mind would believe the defendant violated the terms of probation (para 3). The State presented evidence, including testimony from Officer Sanchez and Michael Abeyta, demonstrating that the Defendant had cut his GPS ankle bracelet and failed to report as required, which constituted a material breach of the probation agreement (paras 5-6). The Court found the Defendant's arguments that the bracelet could have malfunctioned and that he did not hear knocking at his residence to be matters of credibility that were appropriately rejected by the district court (para 9). The Court also noted that even if there was hearsay evidence regarding the Defendant's failure to stay at his approved residence, sufficient evidence supported at least one violation, making the district court's order to revoke probation proper (paras 10-12).