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, Dylan Maho, entered a no contest plea to three counts of voyeurism involving individuals under the age of 18. Following a plea and disposition agreement, he was sentenced to 364 days in a Community Custody Program and three years of supervised probation. Before the written judgment was entered, and despite not being officially on probation due to a lack of court order, the Defendant voluntarily reported to the probation office. The State later filed a motion to revoke his probation, citing violations that occurred before the formal judgment was entered (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Mark A. Macaron, District Judge, March 7, 2016: The district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation was appealed.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that the district court had the authority to revoke the Defendant's probation even before the probationary period began, citing case law to support the assertion that a court can revoke probation at any time after an order of probation is entered and before the full suspended sentence expires. Additionally, the State contended that the district court had authority to revoke probation after its oral sentencing order but before the written judgment was entered, arguing that the oral sentence was final and acted upon by the Defendant (paras 4-5).
• Defendant-Appellant (Dylan Maho): Challenged the revocation of his probation on the grounds that he was not officially on probation at the time the alleged violations occurred, as the written judgment had not yet been entered (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had the authority to revoke the Defendant's probation for violations that occurred before the formal entry of the written judgment and sentence (para 4).
• Whether actions taken by the Defendant based on the court's oral sentencing order created a reasonable expectation of finality, thereby granting the court authority to revoke probation before the written judgment was entered (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation (para 8).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with James J. Wechsler and Michael D. Bustamante, JJ., concurring: The Court was not persuaded by the State's arguments that the district court had the authority to revoke the Defendant's probation before the probationary period began or before the written judgment was entered. The Court distinguished the present case from cited precedents, noting that the Defendant's actions did not create a reasonable expectation of finality in the oral ruling. Consequently, the Court held that the district court lacked the authority to revoke the Defendant's probation based on the procedural history and the facts of the case (paras 4-8).