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 supervised probation for three years and was required to comply with standard conditions of probation and any other reasonable conditions specified by the Probation and Parole Division of the New Mexico Corrections Department. The Defendant failed to appear for a scheduled appointment with his probation officer, who had left a voicemail about the meeting five days prior. The probation officer's instruction was considered a reasonable request that the Defendant was expected to comply with (para 5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove a probation violation because there was not a reasonable certainty that he had knowledge of his appointment with his probation officer. The Defendant contended that the presumption of receiving a voicemail does not equate to actual receipt under due process principles (para 3).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish with reasonable certainty that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation by failing to appear for a scheduled appointment with his probation officer (para 2-3).

Disposition

• The district court’s order revoking the Defendant's probation was affirmed (para 6).

Reasons

• The decision was authored by Judge Linda M. Vanzi with Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee and Judge Megan P. Duffy concurring. The court held that proof of a probation violation must be established with reasonable certainty and viewed in a light most favorable to the State. The court found that the Defendant's failure to appear for the appointment constituted a violation of his probation terms. Despite the Defendant's argument regarding the uncertainty of voicemail receipt, the court reasoned that the conditions of probation implicitly required the Defendant to listen to voicemails from his probation officer and comply with reasonable instructions. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the Defendant's probation, emphasizing that a probationer's failure to diligently check voicemails or read mail for instructions from the probation office cannot be attributed to a failure of proper notification by the probation officer (paras 2-6).