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 and violated multiple terms of his probation order. These violations included concealing his identity, failing to report, failing to notify of a change of address, failing to comply with the Community Corrections Unit requirements, failing to permit visits to his residence, failing to comply with drug testing and hotline requirements, and failing to provide urine for testing (para 4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant violated multiple terms of his probation order, which justified the revocation of his probation (para 4).
• Defendant-Appellant (Ramiro Garcia-Larondo): Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the revocation of his probation. He also stated that there was nothing in the record explaining why he violated the terms of his probation, implying that the violations might have resulted from factors beyond his control (paras 3, 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation.
• Whether the Defendant's probation violations were willful or resulted from factors beyond his control.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the order revoking the Defendant's probation (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jonathan B. Sutin, Michael E. Vigil, and Timothy L. Garcia, unanimously affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation. The Court noted that the prosecution bears the burden of establishing a probation violation with reasonable certainty and that the obligation is on the prosecution to prove willful conduct on the part of the probationer. The district court, after an evidentiary hearing, found that the Defendant had violated multiple terms of his probation order. The Defendant failed to present evidence to excuse his noncompliance by demonstrating that the violations resulted from factors beyond his control. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not assert any error in facts or law in the Court's calendar notice, nor did it fulfill the requirement to specifically point out errors of law and fact. Based on these considerations, the Court affirmed the revocation of the Defendant's probation (paras 3-6).