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 convicted for violating a stipulated order of protection against the Victim, his former intimate partner, by approaching her residence and verbally assaulting her. This order was initially agreed upon after their relationship ended, setting specific distance restrictions. Despite these conditions, the Defendant was found to have breached the order by engaging in threatening behavior towards the Victim.

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court: Convicted the Defendant for violating the order of protection and sentenced him to 364 days in custody, suspended for probation with conditions including no contact with the Victim and domestic violence counseling.
• District Court of Bernalillo County, Christina P. Argyres, District Judge: Denied Defendant's request for a trial de novo, maintaining the case as an on-record appeal, and later dismissed the case for lack of prosecution and failure to follow procedural rules.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that he was entitled to a de novo trial in the district court, contending that a violation of an order of protection does not constitute an act of domestic violence under the statute, and thus, should not be limited to an on-record review.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant was not entitled to a de novo trial because he was convicted of a domestic violence offense in metropolitan court, warranting only an on-record review.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's conviction for violating an order of protection constitutes an act of domestic violence, thereby limiting his appeal to an on-record review rather than a trial de novo.

Disposition

• The district court's decision to deny a de novo trial and to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution and failure to follow procedural rules was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Linda M. Vanzi authoring the opinion, concurred by Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Timothy L. Garcia, held that the Defendant's actions constituted domestic abuse as defined by the Family Violence Protection Act (FVPA), thus affirming the district court's decision. The court applied statutory interpretation and precedent to conclude that the Defendant's behavior fell within the scope of domestic abuse, involving threats causing imminent fear of bodily injury, among other criteria. The court also addressed the Defendant's arguments regarding the nature of his conviction and the procedural aspects of his appeal, ultimately determining that the factual basis of the conviction supported the classification as domestic abuse, warranting an on-record appeal rather than a trial de novo (paras 7-21).