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, Rebecca Sotelo, was on probation when she failed to report to her probation officer on the required date of March 3, 2016, and did not report until August 2016. This delay led to the revocation of her probation by the court (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Curry County, Fred T. Van Soelen, District Judge, January 25, 2018: The District Court revoked the Defendant's probation.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence of non-compliance with the probation condition was sufficient to justify a finding of willful violation, as the Defendant did not present any evidence to excuse her non-compliance (para 1).
• Defendant-Appellant (Rebecca Sotelo): Relied on arguments made in a previous memorandum in opposition, asserting that the State had not met its burden to demonstrate a willful violation of probation conditions (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State demonstrated that the Defendant willfully violated her probation conditions by not reporting as required.
• Whether the Defendant had the burden to come forward with evidence to excuse her non-compliance with the probation reporting requirement.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court to revoke the Defendant's probation (para 4).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Stephen G. French and Emil J. Kiehne concurring, the Court of Appeals initially proposed to reverse the probation revocation based on the unclear evidence of willful violation. However, after considering the State's response and applying the precedent from State v. Parsons, the Court concluded that the State had met its burden by showing non-compliance with probation conditions. The Court found that the Defendant had the opportunity to present evidence to excuse her non-compliance but failed to do so. The Defendant's reliance on previous arguments without addressing the burden shifting established by Parsons was insufficient to meet the requirements for challenging the Court's proposed disposition. Therefore, the Court affirmed the revocation of probation (paras 1-3).