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 arrested with signs of alcohol consumption and possession, violating probation terms. Despite police notification to the probation officer about the arrest, the Defendant failed to personally report the arrest within the required 48-hour timeframe, leading to a probation revocation proceeding (paras 6).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Angela J. Jewell, District Judge: The district court order revoking the Defendant's probation was affirmed (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the State failed to disclose a "taser video" mentioned in a police report, claimed trial counsel was ineffective for not demanding the tape, and challenged the sufficiency of evidence for probation revocation. The Defendant also contended that his probation officer was notified of his arrest by the police, fulfilling the requirement to report any arrest within 48 hours (paras 3-4, 6).
• Appellee (State): Presented evidence of the Defendant's probation violation through signs of alcohol consumption at the time of arrest and failure to report the arrest within the stipulated timeframe. The State argued this was sufficient to revoke probation (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State's failure to disclose the "taser video" mentioned in a police report constitutes a violation of the Defendant's rights.
• Whether the trial counsel was ineffective for not demanding the "taser video."
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement to add a new issue was denied (para 3).
• The district court order revoking the Defendant's probation was affirmed (para 2).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil with Judges James J. Wechsler and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, provided several reasons for their decisions:
  The Court found the motion to amend the docketing statement lacked viability because the "taser video" was not part of the record, making it non-reviewable on direct appeal. The Court suggested that the Defendant's claims might be more appropriately addressed in a habeas corpus proceeding (para 4).
  Regarding the sufficiency of evidence for probation revocation, the Court noted the State's burden to prove a violation with reasonable certainty. The evidence presented by the State, including the Defendant's appearance and possession at the time of arrest and failure to report the arrest, was deemed sufficient. The Court emphasized that probation conditions required the Defendant to personally report any arrest, dismissing the argument that police notification to the probation officer fulfilled this obligation. The use of hearsay evidence in probation revocation hearings was acknowledged as permissible, supporting the decision to revoke probation based on the evidence and testimony presented (paras 5-6).