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 for two separate district court cases. He violated the terms of his probation by failing to report for an intake appointment on May 2, 2017, failing to provide a valid address to his probation and parole officer, and absconding from supervision.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Fernando R. Macias, District Judge: The district court issued two orders revoking the Defendant's probation in two separate cases (D-307-CR-2016-00929 and D-307-CR-2016-01077).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish a willful violation of probation conditions, claiming inadvertent provision of an incorrect address, lack of a working phone upon release, and no information about the requirement to report to the probation office on May 2. Also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging failure of trial counsel to communicate regularly, which led to being unprepared to testify and regret over the decision to testify.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish to a reasonable certainty that the Defendant violated his probation.
• Whether the Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of the Defendant's probation.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, and JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge, concurring):
  Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court found sufficient evidence to support the revocation of probation based on the Defendant's failure to appear for a scheduled appointment with the Adult Probation and Parole Office (APPO), failure to follow up with APPO, and absconding from supervision. The Court noted that even if there was sufficient evidence to support just one violation, the revocation would be proper (paras 3-5).
  Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The Court determined that the Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not supported by the record and suggested that such a claim would be more appropriately brought through a habeas corpus petition. The Court highlighted the limitations of reviewing ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal when necessary facts are not part of the record (paras 6-7).