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 when two separate petitions were filed against him, alleging violations of his probation conditions. The first petition, dated April 27, 2021, accused the Defendant of causing criminal damage to property and resisting an officer. The second petition, dated May 18, 2021, was based on an incident where the Defendant attempted to bite corrections officers while being prepared for transport and spat on the officers during transport (paras 5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued against the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation of his probation. Specifically, he contested the allegations of criminal damage to property and resisting an officer, arguing that there was no lawful basis for his arrest on these charges. Additionally, the Defendant sought to amend the docketing statement to include a new issue regarding the imposition of a one-year habitual offender enhancement on each of the four underlying felonies (paras 2, 6).
• Appellee: The State argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation, citing incidents of the Defendant's failure to obey the law and endangering persons or property as required by the standard condition of his probation. The State maintained that the Defendant's actions constituted willful violations of his probation conditions (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in imposing a one-year habitual offender enhancement onto each of the four underlying felonies when one of those felonies ran concurrently to the others in the original sentence (para 3).
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation (para 4).
• Whether the revocation proceeding should have been dismissed because the adjudicatory hearing was not held within sixty days of the initial hearing (para 7).

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied (para 3).
• The order of revocation of probation was affirmed (para 8).

Reasons

• Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, Zachary A. Ives, and Shammara H. Henderson concurred in the decision. The court found the issue regarding the imposition of habitual offender enhancements not viable because the district court had discretion to impose these enhancements either concurrently or consecutively, regardless of the original sentence's concurrent nature (para 3). Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the court held that the State had met its burden of establishing a probation violation with reasonable certainty, specifically citing the incident where the Defendant attempted to bite and spat on corrections officers. This incident alone was deemed sufficient to support the revocation of probation, as it constituted a failure to obey the law (paras 4-6). The court also noted that the Defendant abandoned the issue concerning the procedural deadline for the revocation proceeding, as he did not respond to the court's proposed disposition of this issue (para 7).