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 entered a plea agreement, consolidating his sentence in two separate cases under supervised probation instead of incarceration. Allegations arose that the Defendant failed to comply with probation conditions, including failing to report as required, failing to report a change of status, and violating state law by resisting an officer, failing to yield, and having no proof of insurance. These allegations led to motions to revoke the Defendant's probation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the district court violated his due process rights by relying on hearsay evidence to revoke his probation, arguing that without this inadmissible hearsay, there was insufficient evidence for revocation (paras 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that the probation revocation was supported by sufficient evidence, including testimony from the new probation officer and judicial notice of a judgment and sentence for new convictions. The State maintained that even one proven violation justifies probation revocation (paras 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court violated the Defendant's due process rights by revoking his probation based on hearsay evidence without allowing confrontation (para 3).
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation if at least one violation is proven (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation (para 25).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, and STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the Defendant's due process rights were not violated despite the use of hearsay evidence in the probation revocation hearing. It was determined that good cause existed for not requiring confrontation, especially considering the objective nature of the violations alleged (failure to report as required and failure to report a change of residence). The Court noted that the State had met its burden of establishing with reasonable certainty that the Defendant violated the conditions of his probation. The testimony of the probation officers, based on their personal knowledge and the probation violation reports they authored, was deemed sufficient. Additionally, the Court took judicial notice of a judgment and sentence for new convictions, further supporting the revocation. The Court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion by the district court in revoking probation, as the State provided sufficient evidence of violations, and the Defendant did not present evidence to excuse non-compliance or contest the relevant facts (paras 3-25).