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 a probation violation report was filed on November 23, 2011. The State later filed a motion to revoke the Defendant's probation on February 29, 2012, and set conditions of release on March 5, 2012.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the delay between the filing of the probation violation report and the State's motion to revoke his probation, as well as the delay in setting conditions of release, violated his rights under Rule 5-805 NMRA and the New Mexico Constitution.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the delay between the filing of the probation violation report and the State’s motion to revoke probation, and the setting of conditions of release, violated the Defendant's rights under Rule 5-805 NMRA and the New Mexico Constitution.

Disposition

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

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and M. Monica Zamora, Judge concurring: The Court considered the Defendant's appeal from the revocation of his probation, focusing on the alleged violation of his rights due to procedural delays. The Court noted that the district court had dismissed the State's initial motion to revoke probation based on the November 23, 2011, probation violation report due to timeliness issues but found subsequent motions to revoke probation were timely filed from new probation violation reports. The Defendant failed to provide any legal authority to support his argument that the delays related to the November probation report tainted the subsequent motions to revoke probation. The Court emphasized the necessity for a party opposing summary disposition to specifically point out errors in fact and/or law, which the Defendant failed to do. Consequently, the Court affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation for these reasons and those stated in the Court's calendar notice.