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 he missed a required drug test. He claimed to have taken other drug tests during the same period that were negative and had made arrangements with his probation officer to reschedule the missed drug test. The district court found the violation to be willful and revoked his probation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the probation violation was not willful, presenting evidence of other negative drug tests taken during the same period and claiming to have arranged with the probation officer to reschedule the missed drug test (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that the Defendant's probation violation was willful.

Disposition

• The district court’s revocation of the Defendant’s probation was affirmed (para 4).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, with M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge, and JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge concurring, found that the district court did not err in concluding the Defendant's probation violation was willful. The Court emphasized that it must view evidence in the light most favorable to the State and indulge all reasonable inferences in favor of the district court’s judgment. It was noted that the Defendant's arguments on appeal essentially requested the Court to reweigh evidence, which it declined to do. The Court affirmed the revocation of probation, relying on the principle that it is the role of the fact-finder to resolve conflicts in testimony and determine the weight and credibility of evidence (paras 2-4).