Court of Appeals of New Mexico

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARK STAAKE,
Defendant-Appellant.

No. 33,307

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

April 30, 2014

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Neil C. Candelaria, District Judge

COUNSEL

Gary K. King, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee

Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender, Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant

JUDGES

M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge. WE CONCUR: JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge

AUTHOR: M. MONICA ZAMORA

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ZAMORA, Judge.

{1}       Defendant appeals from the revocation of his probation. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Because we remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s assertions of error, we uphold the revocation of Defendant’s probation.

{2}       In his docketing statement Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. He renews that argument in his memorandum in opposition. [MIO 3-5]

{3}       As we previously observed, the State met its burden of proof by presenting evidence that Defendant committed numerous, serious violations of the conditions of his probation. [DS 3; MIO 2-4] This supplies ample support for the district court’s decision to revoke his probation. Although we acknowledge that Defendant has not yet been charged and/or convicted of all of the various criminal offenses which he is alleged to have committed, [MIO 4] it was not incumbent upon the State to make such a showing. Cf. State v. Martinez, 1989-NMCA-036, ¶ 4, 108 N.M. 604, 775 P.2d 1321 (observing that “proof of a violation of a condition of probation need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt,” but rather, must merely incline a “reasonable and impartial mind to the belief that the defendant has violated the terms of probation”).

{4}       Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary disposition and above, we affirm.

{5}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge