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 2013, the Defendant was charged with trafficking of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), conspiracy to commit trafficking, and possession of drug paraphernalia. After pleading guilty to one count of trafficking, the Defendant received a suspended sentence of nine years imprisonment and a three-year term of probation. The Defendant admitted to violating his probation in December 2014 after testing positive for alcohol and opted into the Technical Violation Program (TVP). While under the TVP, the Defendant tested positive for methamphetamine twice and was later arrested for possession of a stolen motor vehicle and altering engine numbers. His probation officer filed a report alleging new criminal offenses and failure to enter a drug treatment program (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant willfully violated the terms of his probation by failing to enter and complete a drug treatment program as required.
• Defendant-Appellant (Jeffrey Aslin): Contended that there was insufficient evidence of willfulness in his failure to comply with probation conditions and argued that his failure to enter and complete an outpatient drug treatment program was a technical violation that should have been sanctioned under the TVP, rather than resulting in probation revocation.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s finding that the Defendant willfully violated his probation.
• Whether the Defendant's failure to enter and complete an outpatient drug treatment program constituted a technical violation under the TVP, warranting sanctions rather than probation revocation.

Disposition

• The district court’s finding that the Defendant violated probation was affirmed.
• The district court’s finding that the Defendant’s violation was not a technical violation was reversed, and the case was remanded for sentencing consistent with the automatic sanctions of the TVP (para 18).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges Julie J. Vargas and Stephen G. French concurring, found that the State established a prima facie case that the Defendant willfully violated a term of his probation agreement by failing to enter into, participate in, and complete outpatient drug treatment as required. The Defendant did not present evidence to rebut this presumption of willfulness. However, the Court also found that the district court erred in not considering the Defendant's failure to enter and complete treatment as a technical violation under the TVP. The Court clarified the definition of a technical violation under Rule 5-805(C) as any violation that does not involve new criminal charges, which applied to the Defendant's case since the district court found insufficient evidence of new criminal offenses. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Defendant should have been sanctioned under the TVP for a third technical violation, which would involve a fourteen-day jail sentence, rather than having his probation revoked (paras 7-17).