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

• Dion Chavez, the Defendant, was placed on supervised probation after pleading guilty to two counts of possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. As a condition of his probation, he was required to successfully complete a treatment program. Between February and August 2013, the Defendant violated his probation twice by testing positive for methamphetamine and failing to complete drug court. After failing to gain acceptance into the Salvation Army treatment program, he was placed in the Four Winds treatment program upon his request. The State filed a motion to revoke his probation, alleging he failed to complete the Four Winds program, based on a letter from his treatment counselor (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court’s conclusion of willful violation of probation conditions was not supported by substantial evidence and claimed a violation of due process rights during the probation revocation hearing (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant failed to comply with a condition of his probation by not completing the treatment program at Four Winds Recovery Center, as evidenced by a letter from the Defendant’s treatment counselor and testimony from the Defendant’s probation officer (paras 6-7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court’s conclusion that the Defendant willfully violated a condition of his probation is supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether the Defendant’s due process rights were violated during the probation revocation hearing.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and order revoking probation (para 14).

Reasons

• Per STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The Court of Appeals found that the evidence, particularly the testimony of the Defendant’s probation officer and the letter from Four Winds, was sufficient to support the district court’s conclusion that the Defendant willfully violated the terms of his probation by failing to complete the treatment program. The court applied a two-step process to review the evidence, determining that a rational trier of fact could conclude the Defendant violated his probation terms. The court also noted that a violation of probation need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, only to a reasonable certainty (paras 5-7).
  Regarding the due process claim, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Defendant failed to preserve this argument for appeal by not objecting to the letter or the testimony of his probation officer at the time of their introduction or at any point during the proceedings. The court emphasized that objections must be made with sufficient specificity to alert the trial court to the claimed error, and a closing argument made after the close of evidence does not suffice to preserve such an argument for appeal (paras 12-13).