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 and was required to obtain permission from his probation/parole officer before leaving the county where he was being supervised or residing. The State alleged that the Defendant violated this condition by leaving Bernalillo County without obtaining the necessary permission. The Defendant contended that he had received oral permission from his probation officer to leave the county.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant failed to describe evidence supporting revocation in his docketing statement and suggested deferring to the district court's findings regarding credibility. The State also described testimony from the supervisor of Defendant's probation officer, indicating that the Defendant did not have permission to leave the county and that there was no record of such permission being granted.
• Defendant-Appellant (Chase A. Haney): Asserted that the State failed to establish he violated his probation condition as he had received oral permission from his probation officer to leave the county.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Defendant violated his probation condition by leaving the county without permission.

Disposition

• The revocation of the Defendant's probation was reversed, and the case was remanded to the district court for appropriate proceedings.

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Jennifer L. Attrep, Kristina Bogardus, and Megan P. Duffy, unanimously found that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that the Defendant violated his probation conditions. The Court highlighted that the central issue was whether the Defendant had received oral permission from his probation officer to leave the county, a point which the Defendant contended but the State did not adequately refute with evidence. The Court noted the absence of testimony or evidence from the State contesting the Defendant's claim of having received oral permission. It emphasized the importance of due process and the requirement for live testimony to resolve contested assertions central to the reasons for revocation. The Court also addressed the State's argument regarding deference to the district court's credibility findings, clarifying that the issue at hand did not involve conflicting testimony but rather the State's failure to present evidence against the Defendant's claim of having received oral permission. Consequently, the Court reversed the probation revocation due to the State's inability to fulfill its burden of proof (paras 1-7).