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 released from prison in April 2020 and began a five-year probation term, which was transferred to Texas. While on probation, the Defendant stopped reporting to his supervising officer after being discharged from a concurrent parole term in September 2021, subsequently picking up new criminal charges in Oklahoma and later a shoplifting charge in New Mexico. The State moved to revoke his probation due to these violations, including the new criminal charges (paras 4-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation by failing to report as required and by committing new criminal offenses (para 6).
• Defendant-Appellant (Justin Easley): Contended that he was unaware he was still serving his probationary term, believing it ended simultaneously with his parole, based on misinformation from his probation officer in Texas. Argued that his probation violations were not willful (paras 8-9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation (para 2).
• Whether the Defendant's probation violations were willful, considering his claim of being unaware of his ongoing probationary term (para 8).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation (para 11).

Reasons

• Judges Megan P. Duffy, Kristina Bogardus, and Jane B. Yohalem concurred in the opinion. The Court held that proof of a probation violation must be established with reasonable certainty and reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. The State's evidence, including the Defendant's failure to report and commission of new criminal offenses, was deemed sufficient to support the revocation. The Court questioned the viability of the Defendant's argument regarding his unawareness of the probation term, noting that willfulness is generally presumed upon proof of a probation violation. The Court found that the district court was not required to credit the Defendant's testimony about being misinformed by his probation officer, given the official documentation indicating he had been informed of his probation term until April 2025. The assertion of error was rejected, and the revocation of probation was upheld (paras 3-11).