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 when he allegedly participated in an armed robbery and failed to report his arrest to his probation officer within forty-eight hours. This led to the State filing a motion to revoke his probation. The Defendant was arraigned and held without bond, but the hearing on the motion to revoke probation was delayed beyond the prescribed period without the State seeking an extension of time (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County, May 5, 2017: The State filed a second motion to revoke the Defendant's probation, alleging probation violations (para 3).
• District Court of Sandoval County, May 30, 2017: Defendant was arraigned on these alleged probation violations and ordered held without bond (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not finding a violation of Rule 5-805(H) NMRA due to the State's failure to timely hold the adjudicatory hearing. Contended that the district court improperly took judicial notice of the indictment from Odyssey without a certified copy being introduced into evidence. Also argued that the detention center's failure to provide a means for him to promptly notify his probation officer of his arrest should be reviewed for fundamental error (paras 2, 6-8).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in ruling there was no violation of Rule 5-805(H) NMRA when the State failed to timely hold the adjudicatory hearing.
• Whether the district court erred in taking judicial notice of the indictment from Odyssey without a certified copy being introduced into evidence.
• Whether the detention center's failure to provide a way for the Defendant to promptly notify his probation officer of his arrest must be reviewed for fundamental error (paras 2, 6, 8).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation (para 10).

Reasons

• VANZI, Judge (HANISEE, J., and ATTREP, J., concurring):
  The Court found that Rule 5-805(H) does not mandate the dismissal of a petition to revoke probation for failure to commence the adjudicatory hearing within the prescribed time. Instead, it allows for the probationer's release back to probation supervision pending final adjudication, with dismissal being discretionary for the district court. The Court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion by the district court in declining to dismiss the motion to revoke probation (para 4).
  The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that Rule 5-805(L) was inapplicable, clarifying that it specifically allows for the dismissal of the motion to revoke probation for violating any of the time limits in Rule 5-805, thus making dismissal discretionary (para 5).
  Regarding the judicial notice of the indictment, the Court found no error in the district court's action, noting that the State presented sufficient evidence besides the indictment to establish the alleged violations. Even if there was an error, it did not prejudice the Defendant (para 7).
  The Court dismissed the Defendant's argument about the detention center's failure to provide means for notifying his probation officer, noting that the Defendant did not present evidence to support this claim. The Court emphasized that it was the Defendant's burden to show his failure to report the arrest was not willful, which he failed to do (para 8).