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 involves the Defendant's appeal from the revocation of his probation. The Defendant challenged the district court's jurisdiction to order sex offender supervision as a condition of his probation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose sex offender supervision as a condition of his probation.
• Appellee: The State, presumably, defended the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation and impose sex offender supervision, although specific arguments from the State are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to order sex offender supervision as a condition of the Defendant's probation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of the Defendant's probation.

Reasons

• The Court, per J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges James J. Wechsler and Jonathan B. Sutin concurring, held that the district court's clarification that the Defendant was subject to sex offender supervision did not constitute a modification of the terms of his probation. The Court referenced State v. Green and State v. Leon to support the probation authority's ability to impose such a requirement under standard conditions, without specific action from the district court. The Defendant's jurisdictional challenge was therefore rejected (paras 1-4).