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 allegations of probation violations arose. The violations included failing to report to a probation officer and not participating in required substance abuse screening or a batterer’s intervention program. The Defendant attributed these failures to unclear guidance and an inability to pay for the programs.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the probation violations were not willful, citing unclear guidance for failing to report to the probation officer and financial inability to participate in mandated programs (para 4).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Defendant's probation violations were willful.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, upholding the revocation of the Defendant's probation.

Reasons

• MEDINA, J., IVES, J., and YOHALEM, J., concurring: The Court found the Defendant's arguments in the memorandum in opposition insufficient to overturn the original assessment of the first issue raised, deeming it abandoned (para 3). On the challenge regarding the sufficiency of evidence for willful probation violations, the Court noted that the evidence presented was subject to conflicting inferences. It was within the district court's discretion to not credit the Defendant's testimony regarding the reasons for his failures to comply with probation conditions. The appellate court declined to reweigh evidence or draw inferences in favor of the Defendant, emphasizing the principle that once a violation of probation is established to a reasonable certainty, it is presumed willful unless the defendant can prove otherwise. The decision to affirm was based on the reasoning provided in the notice of proposed summary disposition and the memorandum opinion, which supported the sufficiency of evidence for probation violation (paras 4-5).