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 the district court decided to revoke it due to violations of the terms set forth. The violations included failure to comply with counseling sessions, being argumentative and resistant to addressing substance abuse and sexual-offense issues, demonstrating psychopathic behavior, and showing hostility towards counselors and therapists, including a physical confrontation challenge. The Defendant argued that his non-compliance was not willful but stemmed from an inability to pay for the counseling sessions.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Mark A. Macaron, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the failure to comply with probation terms was not willful but due to an inability to pay for counseling sessions. Also contended that a 1979 felony conviction should not be used to enhance the sentence due to its remoteness in time and argued that the forfeiture of good-time deductions was erroneous and that his due-process rights were violated due to inadequate accommodation for his hearing disability.
• Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking the Defendant's probation.
• Whether the district court erred in using a 1979 felony conviction to enhance the Defendant's sentence.
• Whether the forfeiture of good-time deductions was justified.
• Whether the Defendant's due-process rights were violated due to inadequate accommodation for his hearing disability.

Disposition

• The appeal for affirmance of probation revocation was granted.
• The motion to amend the docketing statement to include the issue of the 1979 conviction's remoteness for sentence enhancement was denied.
• The claim of erroneous forfeiture of good-time deductions was rejected.
• The claim of due-process rights violation due to inadequate accommodation for the Defendant's hearing disability was not considered due to lack of preservation for appeal and insufficient demonstration of prejudice.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges M. Monica Zamora, James J. Wechsler, and Jonathan B. Sutin, unanimously affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the revocation, noting that the evidence supported the district court's findings of the Defendant's non-compliance and hostility towards treatment requirements (paras 2-4). The Court also rejected the Defendant's argument regarding the use of a 1979 felony conviction for sentence enhancement, citing State v. Ortega, which established precedent for not applying amendments retroactively in such contexts (paras 5-7). The Court found no evidentiary support for the Defendant's claim about the unjust forfeiture of good-time deductions (para 8). Lastly, the Court did not find sufficient grounds to claim a violation of due-process rights related to the Defendant's hearing disability, emphasizing the lack of specific objection or demonstration of how the alleged error prejudiced the Defendant's case (paras 9-10).