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

• Between May 2019 and January 2020, the State filed three petitions to revoke the Defendant's probation due to various compliance failures. Following the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic as a public health emergency in New Mexico on March 11, 2020, the Supreme Court issued an order updating precautionary measures for court operations. The Defendant requested to appear in person at a hearing to revoke her probation in May 2020, which the district court denied based on the Supreme Court's order, opting instead for an audio-visual appearance. After the hearing, the Defendant's probation was continued, and she was later unsatisfactorily discharged from probation following a fourth petition by the State (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Grant County: The district court denied the Defendant's motion to appear in person at the probation revocation hearing, relying on the Supreme Court's COVID-19 precautionary measures order, and continued her probation.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court violated her right to due process by denying her motion to appear in person at the adjudicatory hearing on the State’s motion to revoke her probation, misinterpreting the Supreme Court Order related to COVID-19 precautions (para 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court violated the Defendant's due process rights by denying her motion to appear in person at the adjudicatory hearing, under the Supreme Court Order No. 20-8500-013, related to COVID-19 precautionary measures (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to appear in person at the adjudicatory hearing and to continue her probation (para 8).

Reasons

• Per HANISEE, Chief Judge (JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge and GERALD E. BACA, Judge concurring): The appeal was initially considered moot due to the Defendant's unsatisfactory discharge from probation and subsequent release. However, the court chose to address the merits due to the public interest and potential for recurrence of similar issues. The court found that the district court did not err in its interpretation of the Supreme Court Order, which allows for discretion in requiring in-person appearances and does not mandate them upon a party's request without an asserted emergency need. The Defendant's motion did not present an emergency need for an in-person appearance, and thus, the district court's decision was in compliance with the Supreme Court Order (paras 4-7).