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 faced allegations of violating several conditions of this probation. The State claimed that the Defendant failed to attend multiple appointments with her probation officer. The Defendant acknowledged these absences but attributed them to her domestic partner preventing her from attending some appointments and claimed unfair treatment by the probation officer as the reason for not attending subsequent appointments (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Lea County, Lee A. Kirksey, District Judge, January 22, 2019: The district court revoked the Defendant's probation.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant violated numerous conditions of her probation, supporting these claims with a summary of facts (para 3).
• Defendant-Appellant (Crystal Bustamante): Conceded to missing several probation appointments but argued that these violations were not willful. She claimed her domestic partner prevented her from attending some appointments and alleged unfair treatment by her probation officer as reasons for her subsequent absences (paras 2-3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation.
• Whether the Defendant's conduct in violating probation conditions was willful.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation (para 4).

Reasons

• Per Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, with Julie J. Vargas, Judge, and Jennifer L. Attrep, Judge concurring:
  The Court of Appeals was not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments against the sufficiency of the evidence for probation revocation. It highlighted the State's burden to prove a probation violation with reasonable certainty and to demonstrate willful conduct on the part of the probationer. The Court noted the Defendant's admissions of missing appointments and considered her explanations for these absences. Ultimately, the district court, as the fact-finder, was entitled to reject the Defendant's explanations and determine the violations were willful. The appellate court, therefore, affirmed the decision to revoke probation, basing its judgment on the principles that the fact-finder may reject a defendant's version of events and the established legal standards for probation revocation proceedings (paras 2-4).