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 probation and, a little over three months into his term, had sex offender supervision imposed as a term of his probation. The probation and parole office inquired with the district court if the Defendant should be placed under sex offender supervision, which was an explicit condition of his original sentence.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court's modification of his sentence to include sex offender supervision was without jurisdiction or sufficient justification, constituted an abuse of discretion, and violated his due process rights.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the probation and parole office had the authority to impose sex offender conditions as part of the original sentence, and thus, the district court did not substantively alter the conditions of the Defendant's probation.

Legal Issues

• Whether the imposition of sex offender supervision as a term of the Defendant's probation more than three months after the commencement of his probation term was authorized under the original sentence.
• Whether the district court's action constituted a modification of the Defendant's sentence and if such modification was a violation of due process.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement to assert a due process violation was denied.
• The order imposing sex offender supervision as a term of probation was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges Jacqueline R. Medina and Zachary A. Ives concurring, found that the probation and parole office was authorized by the Defendant's original sentence to require compliance with sex offender supervision. The Court noted that the Defendant's original sentence explicitly required him to comply with all rules, regulations, and orders of the probation/parole officer, which authorized the imposition of sex offender supervision. The Court referenced established case law supporting the probation authority's power to impose such conditions. The Court concluded that the district court's response to an inquiry regarding sex offender probation did not amount to a modification of the original sentence. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to amend his docketing statement to assert a due process violation based on the enhancement of his sentence was denied as nonviable, and the order on appeal was affirmed (paras 1-5).