AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

Decision Content

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 failed to report as required by the terms of his probation. Additionally, there were allegations concerning the non-payment of fees and costs associated with his probation.

Procedural History

  • APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY, Lisa B. Riley, District Judge: The Defendant's probation was revoked.

Parties' Submissions

  • Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation by failing to report as required and possibly for non-payment of fees and costs.
  • Defendant-Appellant (Michael Hammond): Contested the revocation of his probation, arguing that the State failed to prove he violated his probation terms, specifically regarding the requirement to report and the non-payment of fees and costs.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the State provided sufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation by failing to report as required.
  • Whether the State needed to prove the alleged violation concerning the non-payment of fees and costs to uphold the probation revocation.

Disposition

  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of the Defendant's probation.

Reasons

  • Per J. MILES HANISEE, with LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge concurring:
    The Court found that the State met its burden of proof by presenting the testimony of the Defendant's probation officer, which established that the Defendant failed to report as required, supporting the revocation of his probation (para 3).
    The Court considered and rejected the Defendant's argument that the State failed to present sufficient evidence regarding the non-payment of fees and costs. It held that the evidence of the reporting violation alone was sufficient to support the revocation, rendering any issues related to the non-payment of fees and costs immaterial (para 4).
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.