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 and subsequently became a fugitive. Efforts to serve the Defendant with a warrant were deemed futile due to the Defendant's unknown whereabouts. The State entered the warrant into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. The Defendant was later arrested by the Unified Police Department in Utah.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation and contested the refusal to allow evidence that the State did not attempt to serve the bench warrant after entering it into the NCIC database.
• Appellee: Maintained that substantial evidence supported the determination that the Defendant was a fugitive, making any attempt to serve him futile, and thus the district court had jurisdiction to revoke the Defendant's probation.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hold a hearing to determine whether the Defendant was a fugitive.
• Whether substantial evidence supported the determination that the Defendant was a fugitive, justifying the revocation of his probation.
• Whether the district court erred in refusing to permit the Defendant to introduce evidence regarding the State's efforts to serve the warrant.
• Whether the district court could refuse to give the Defendant credit for time served on probation from the date he absconded.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, upholding the revocation of the Defendant's probation.

Reasons

• Per CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge concurring):
  The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments against the revocation of his probation. It held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine the Defendant's fugitive status based on established legal precedent and substantial evidence indicating the futility of serving the Defendant. The Court found that the Defendant's plea agreement did not expressly reserve the right to appeal specific pre-trial motions, and even if it did, the issues raised did not warrant reversal of the district court's decision. The Court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that any attempt to serve the Defendant would have been futile, given the Defendant's unknown whereabouts and the State's efforts to locate him. The Court also determined that the district court was within its rights to refuse giving the Defendant credit for time served on probation from the date he absconded, in accordance with state law.