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 sentenced to nine years in prison for voluntary manslaughter with a firearm enhancement and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, with all but 364 days suspended. He was placed on intensive supervised probation with GPS tracking for five years after release, with conditions including obtaining employment or education and abstaining from alcohol and illegal drugs. After release, the Defendant reported to the probation office later than required and tested positive for morphine, leading to a probation violation report by his probation officer and a motion by the State to revoke his probation (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Christina P. Argyres, District Judge, March 12, 2018: The district court revoked the Defendant's probation for failing to report to the probation office within the required time and for testing positive for morphine (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his right to confrontation under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated when the district court allowed his probation officer to testify about the results of his urinalysis drug test (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the district court did not err in revoking the Defendant's probation due to his failure to timely report to the probation office and his positive test for morphine (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in revoking the Defendant's probation based on the probation officer's testimony regarding the urinalysis drug test results, thereby violating the Defendant's right to confrontation under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation (para 13).

Reasons

• Per Julie J. Vargas, with Michael E. Vigil and Emil J. Kiehne concurring, the Court of Appeals found that the district court had sufficient evidence to revoke the Defendant's probation based on his failure to timely report to the probation office, independent of the drug test violation. The court concluded that this violation alone was a sufficient basis for revocation. Additionally, the court noted that even if the revocation had been solely based on the drug test violation, the Defendant's argument regarding his right to confrontation was not preserved for appeal due to insufficient specificity in his objections at the revocation hearing (paras 5-12).