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 actively participate in and successfully complete a drug treatment program as per the probation order. The Defendant failed to enter into, participate in, and successfully complete the required drug treatment, leading to a probation violation hearing. The district court found this failure to be a willful violation of probation terms, not a "technical violation" under the First Judicial District's technical violation program (TVP), and revoked the Defendant's probation.

Procedural History

• State v. Aslin, 2018-NMCA-043, 421 P.3d 843: The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's finding of willfulness but reversed on the issue that the violation was not a "technical violation."
• State v. Aslin, 2020-NMSC-004, 457 P.3d 249: The Supreme Court held that judicial districts have the discretion to define a technical violation, as long as it does not include new criminal charges, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the Defendant's failure to enter and complete a drug treatment program constituted a willful violation of probation terms and was not a technical violation under the TVP.
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that his failure to enter a drug treatment program was a technical violation under the TVP, arguing that it fell within the provision of failing to comply with any term of, or to complete, any treatment program required by the court or probation.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's failure to enter into, participate in, and successfully complete a drug treatment program constituted a willful violation of probation or a technical violation under the First Judicial District's TVP.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation.

Reasons

• Per VANZI, J. (HANISEE, C.J., and VARGAS, J., concurring):
  The Supreme Court's remand required the Court of Appeals to determine if the Defendant's probation violation was a technical violation under the TVP or the order of probation or neither. The Court of Appeals found that the Defendant's failure did not constitute a technical violation as defined by the TVP because the administrative order's language contemplated violations only for those already enrolled in a program (paras 6-8).
  The Court of Appeals disagreed with the Defendant's interpretation of the TVP's administrative order, stating that the plain language did not support his assertion that failing to enter a treatment program was a technical violation. The Court emphasized that the order specifies violations occur when failing to comply with terms of or complete a program, not for failing to enter any program (para 8).
  The Court reasoned that the Defendant's failure to comply with the probation condition to find and enter a treatment program was a serious infraction, constituting more than a mere technical violation. This conclusion was based on the Defendant's repeated refusal to comply with explicit instructions from the probation officer to enroll in an alternative treatment program after the initial option was unavailable (para 9).
  The Court concluded that the district court did not err in revoking the Defendant's probation based on the plain language of the order and the undisputed facts of the case (para 10).