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

• In 2008, the Defendant was convicted of criminal sexual contact with a minor following an Alford plea. The court suspended all but five years of a fifteen-year sentence, with a probationary term of five to twenty years upon release. The Defendant was released into supervised probation in 2012 without the district court conducting a mandatory hearing to determine the terms and conditions of his probation, as required by law. In 2015, the State filed a motion to revoke the Defendant's probation for violating conditions outlined in a sex offender supervision behavioral contract, which the Defendant had signed upon his release. The violations included contacting the victim, accessing pornography, and deleting phone web browser history (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to prove he had notice of the probation conditions he allegedly violated and that his due process rights were violated due to the district court's failure to conduct mandatory hearings on the terms and conditions of his probation (para 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant did not argue in district court that he was unaware of the behavioral contract's terms and conditions. The State also argued that the Defendant did not establish prejudice from not having the statutorily required hearings, which is necessary to claim a due process violation (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State failed to prove the Defendant was aware of the conditions of probation he allegedly violated.
• Whether the Defendant's right to due process was violated by the district court's failure to conduct mandatory hearings on the terms and conditions of his probation (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of the Defendant's probation (para 14).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge J. Miles Hanisee authoring the opinion and Judges Linda M. Vanzi and Stephen G. French concurring, held that the Defendant waived his opportunity to contend he was unaware of the terms and conditions of his supervised probation. The court also found that the Defendant's right to due process was not violated because he failed to establish that he suffered prejudice as a result of the deprivation of his statutory right to hearings. The court emphasized that probation revocation proceedings do not require the same level of due process as criminal trials and that demonstrating prejudice is necessary to establish a due process violation in this context. The court noted the Defendant's failure to argue that the outcome would have been different had the hearings been conducted, and highlighted the importance of statutory compliance for clarity in behavioral expectations for sex offender probationers and the community (paras 5-13).