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 case involves the Defendant, Marvin Clark, who was identified as the driver of a stolen car during a high-speed felony pursuit at night. The identification was made by an officer from a forty-foot distance. This event led to the revocation of the Defendant's probation.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Angela J. Jewell, District Judge: The district court issued an order revoking the Defendant's probation.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence, particularly the officer's testimony identifying him as the driver of the stolen vehicle during a high-speed chase at night, was insufficient to support the revocation of his probation. The Defendant also highlighted that the officer's observations did not lead to the pursuit of filed criminal charges (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation.
• Whether the State failed to establish a violation of the counseling provision of the Defendant's probation.

Disposition

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

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE (LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge concurring): The Court found the officer's testimony credible enough to establish, with reasonable certainty, that the Defendant violated his probation by violating state laws. The Court emphasized that it does not engage in re-evaluating the weight and credibility of witness testimony on appeal, as these are matters for the fact-finder. Additionally, the Court noted that the failure of new charges to result in convictions does not undermine the support for an allegation of a probation violation. The Court also dismissed the Defendant's complaint regarding the alleged failure to establish a violation of the counseling provision of his probation, stating that evidence supporting even one violation is sufficient for the revocation of probation to be deemed proper, especially when the violation involves new criminal charges (paras 2-5).