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 charged with residential burglary, larceny, conspiracy to commit residential burglary or larceny, and escape from penitentiary or jail based on events in 1999. After pleading guilty to escape and admitting to eight felonies between 1985 and 1999, he was sentenced to over 26 years in prison, with part of the sentence suspended and a five-year probation upon release. The State filed a motion to revoke his probation, alleging violations including failure to pay a DNA fee. The district court found the Defendant violated his probation solely for not paying the DNA fee (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that the Defendant violated his probation by failing to pay the DNA fee as instructed (para 3).
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the district court erred in revoking his probation based on failure to pay the DNA fee, denied his request for continuance, and either lacked jurisdiction to find a probation violation or he had ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 6-7, 14, 18).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in revoking the Defendant's probation based on failure to pay the DNA fee.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's request for continuance.
• Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction to find a probation violation or, alternatively, whether the Defendant had ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

• The district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation was affirmed (para 24).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and M. Monica Zamora concurring, held that:
  The district court did not err in revoking probation based on the Defendant's failure to pay the DNA fee. The Defendant had adequate notice and failed to provide evidence of his inability to pay the fee (paras 8-12).
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion for continuance as the Defendant failed to subpoena probation files before the revocation hearing and did not present any evidence contesting the probation officer’s testimony at the hearing (paras 14-17).
  The district court had jurisdiction to consider the State's motion to revoke probation, and the Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not supported by the record, suggesting a habeas corpus proceeding as the appropriate avenue for relief (paras 18-23).