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, Vernon McGee, was ordered by the district court to report to the Otero County Detention Center (OCDC) on September 25, 2017, at 8:00 am to begin his jail term as a condition of his probation. The Defendant failed to report as ordered, leading to the revocation of his probation by the district court.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court could not revoke his probation for failing to turn himself in as ordered because turning himself in was not a condition of his probation. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he violated his probation, arguing that hearsay evidence was improperly relied upon and that his failure to report was not willful.
• Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court could revoke the Defendant's probation for failing to report to the OCDC as ordered, considering whether this was a condition of his probation.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Defendant willfully violated his probation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of the Defendant's probation.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Jennifer L. Attrep concurring, found that the district court had not erred in revoking the Defendant's probation. The Court disagreed with the Defendant's argument that turning himself in was not a condition of his probation, citing the judgment and sentence which explicitly stated this requirement under the "Probation Conditions" section. The Court also addressed the Defendant's claim regarding the insufficiency of evidence, noting that hearsay is admissible in probation revocation hearings and that the Defendant had not objected to such evidence on hearsay or confrontation grounds at the hearing. Furthermore, the Court found that the evidence presented, including the Defendant's failure to appear in the booking area and his subsequent arrest in another city nearly a month later, was sufficient to establish a willful violation of probation conditions. The Court concluded that the district court had not abused its discretion in revoking the Defendant's probation, affirming the lower court's decision (paras 1-10).