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, after pleading guilty to trafficking a controlled substance, was sentenced to nine years of incarceration, all suspended with three years of supervised probation. The Defendant was placed in a Technical Violation Program (TVP) after admitting to consuming alcohol, a probation violation. While in the TVP, the Defendant committed two technical violations by testing positive for methamphetamine and was later arrested on new criminal charges. The State filed a petition to revoke probation based on these new charges and the Defendant's failure to enter a drug treatment program as ordered. The district court found the Defendant violated probation by not enrolling in treatment and ruled this was not a mere technical violation, revoking his probation (paras 4-6).

Procedural History

• State v. Aslin, 2018-NMCA-043, 421 P.3d 843, cert. granted (S-1-SC-36999, June 25, 2018): The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that the definition of a technical violation in the First Judicial District’s temporary TVP conflicted with Rule 5-805(C), and remanded the case for imposition of the sanction for a third technical violation under the TVP.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Petitioner (State): Argued that the Court of Appeals misinterpreted Rule 5-805(C) by determining that all probation violations not consisting of new charges must be subject to an automatic sanction according to the TVP schedule (para 8).
• Defendant-Respondent: Contended that the district court erred in ruling that the violation was not a technical violation under the TVP and that the failure to enter and complete outpatient drug treatment should be construed as a technical violation under Rule 5-805(C) (paras 7, 16-19).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals misinterpreted Rule 5-805(C) in determining that all probation violations that do not consist of new charges must be subject to an automatic sanction according to the TVP schedule (para 8).
• Whether the Defendant’s probation violation is or is not a technical violation under the TVP (para 17).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion (para 20).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, per Justice Michael E. Vigil, with Chief Justice Judith K. Nakamura, Justices Barbara J. Vigil, C. Shannon Bacon, and David K. Thomson concurring, found that the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of Rule 5-805(C). The Court clarified that Rule 5-805(C) allows judicial districts the discretion to establish local programs suitable to the district, defining technical violations as long as they do not include new criminal charges. The Court emphasized that the rule's purpose is consistent with the rehabilitative goals of probation and that the Court of Appeals' interpretation removed discretion from judicial districts, contrary to the rule's intent. The Supreme Court also noted the need to determine whether the Defendant’s violation falls under the TVP or the order of probation, a question it remanded to the Court of Appeals (paras 9-19).