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 case revolves around the Defendant's appeal against the revocation of his probation. The State proved that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation by failing to report as required, based on the testimony of the Defendant's probation officer.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the State failed to prove he violated the terms and conditions of his probation, specifically contesting the evidence regarding his failure to report as required and the non-payment of fees and costs (paras 3-4).
• Appellee: The State met its burden of proof by presenting the testimony of the Defendant’s probation officer, which established that the Defendant failed to report as required (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State provided sufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the revocation of the Defendant's probation was affirmed (para 5).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Stephen G. French and Emil J. Kiehne concurring, the court found the State met its burden of proof by presenting the testimony of the Defendant's probation officer, which was sufficient to establish that the Defendant failed to report as required. The court also considered and rejected the Defendant's argument regarding the insufficiency of evidence related to the non-payment of fees and costs, stating that the evidence of one violation was sufficient to support the revocation of probation (paras 3-5).