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

• In November 2016, the Defendant entered a plea agreement, admitting to a prior felony conviction and pleading no contest to trafficking heroin. He was sentenced to nine years, with eight suspended, and ordered to complete a four-year term of supervised probation. The State filed a motion to revoke his probation in October 2017, citing a failure to report to his probation officer and new criminal charges. Despite an agreement to turn himself in, the Defendant failed to report as required, leading to the revocation hearing (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The court imposed a sentence of nine years with eight suspended and ordered a four-year term of supervised probation upon the Defendant's plea agreement (para 2).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: The court revoked the Defendant's probation after finding he willfully failed to report to his probation officer as required (para 8).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the determination that he willfully failed to report to his probation officer, arguing that his failure was not willful because it was based on the advice of his counsel (paras 7, 11-12).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the Defendant's failure to report as required constituted a willful violation of his probation conditions, and once a violation was shown, the burden shifted to the Defendant to prove the violation was not willful (paras 9-13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's determination that the Defendant willfully failed to report to his probation officer as required (para 1).
• Whether the Defendant's reliance on the advice of counsel negated the willfulness of his failure to report (paras 11-12).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of the Defendant's probation (para 14).

Reasons

• Per MEDINA, J. (ZAMORA, J., and VARGAS, J., concurring): The court held that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the district court's determination that the Defendant violated his conditions of probation. The court noted that once the State establishes a violation of probation to a reasonable certainty, a reasonable inference arises that the defendant did so willfully. It then becomes the defendant's burden to show that the failure to comply was not willful or that there was a lawful excuse. The court found that the Defendant did not meet this burden as he failed to present evidence that his failure to report was based on advice received before the failure occurred or that he believed such advice would not result in a violation. Consequently, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the Defendant's probation (paras 9-13).