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 during a home visit by a probation officer at the Defendant's brother's residence, the officer encountered the Defendant and observed violations of probation conditions. These included the possession and use of controlled substances and alcohol, among other violations. The Defendant attempted to flee with a backpack that contained a partially consumed can of beer and a syringe, and later admitted to using heroin a few days earlier.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant violated numerous conditions of his probation, including curfew violations, failure to keep GPS monitor charged, failure to follow instructions relating to the possession of certain items, failure to permit warrantless search of his home, and possession/use of controlled substances and alcohol.
• Defendant-Appellant (Noel R. Calderon, Jr.): Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the revocation of his probation, particularly arguing against the evidence supporting all the allegations made by the State.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation based on alleged violations.

Disposition

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

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge, with Jennifer L. Attrep, Judge, and Briana H. Zamora, Judge concurring:
  The Court of Appeals focused on the possession/use of controlled substances allegation to review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the probation revocation. The State was required to prove a probation violation with reasonable certainty and demonstrate willful conduct on the part of the probationer. The evidence presented, including the probation officer's observations and the Defendant's admission of heroin use, was deemed sufficient to support the revocation based on this single ground. The district court, as the fact-finder, was entitled to reject conflicting testimony, rely on the evidence presented, and infer consciousness of guilt from the Defendant's attempted flight. Despite the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for all allegations, the Court concluded that evidence supporting a single violation was enough to affirm the revocation (paras 2-6).