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 appeals the revocation of his probation by the District Court of Sandoval County. The appeal centers around whether the Defendant was ordered to report following his release from custody and whether he complied with such instructions from his prior probation officer.

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County, Christopher G. Perez, District Judge: Revoked the Defendant's probation.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]
• Defendant-Appellant (Ryan James Griffin): Argued that the State failed to provide evidence showing he was ordered to report following his release from custody and asserted compliance with reporting instructions given by his prior probation officer.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant abandoned the hearsay issue by failing to respond to the proposed disposition of that issue.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to show that the Defendant was ordered to report following his release from custody and whether he complied with such instructions.

Disposition

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

Reasons

• Per Kristina Bogardus, J., with Jacqueline R. Medina, J., and Megan P. Duffy, J., concurring:
  The Court noted the Defendant's failure to respond to the proposed disposition of the hearsay issue, deeming it abandoned (para 2).
  The Court found the Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not provide additional facts or arguments to counter the proposed summary disposition regarding the lack of evidence that the Defendant was ordered to report after his release or that he attempted to contact his former probation officer (paras 2-3).
  The Court observed that the Defendant's memorandum did not address the specific concern regarding the violation of standard condition 3 and reiterated that if there is sufficient evidence to support just one violation, the district court’s order was proper (para 3).
  The Court concluded that the Defendant did not present any new facts, authority, or persuasive argument to challenge the proposed summary disposition, affirming the revocation of probation for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed disposition and the memorandum opinion (paras 4-5).