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 with a zero tolerance reporting requirement. He failed to report to the probation office on the specified dates, which led to the revocation of his probation by the district court. The Defendant argued that his failure to report was due to transportation issues and was not willful.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the failure to report to the probation office was caused by transportation issues and was not a willful violation of the probation agreement (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant failed to report to the probation office on the firm dates given to him, without providing a valid excuse for his noncompliance (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that the Defendant violated the probation agreement.
• Whether the district court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence or otherwise sanction the State for the untimely disclosure of its witness list.

Disposition

• The district court’s order revoking the Defendant’s probation was affirmed (para 4).

Reasons

• The decision was authored by Judge Jane B. Yohalem, with Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep and Judge Jacqueline R. Medina concurring. The Court found that the Defendant did not demonstrate error in the proposed assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the probation violation. The Defendant's failure to report was not justified by the transportation issues he claimed, as there was no factual basis or support in the record for this claim. Additionally, the Defendant's challenge regarding the untimely disclosure of the witness list by the State was addressed. The Court acknowledged a mistake in stating that the Defendant admitted failing to object to the late witness list but concluded that the Defendant failed to show prejudice resulting from this late disclosure, which is necessary to establish grounds for relief. Therefore, the Court was not persuaded that there was reversible error in the district court's decisions (paras 1-3).