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 probation when he tested positive for cocaine, admitted to using cocaine to his probation officer, violated a restraining order, and admitted in his testimony at the hearing that he used cocaine. These actions led to the revocation of his probation.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, Steven Blankenship, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the probation revocation hearing was untimely and that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his probation.
• Appellee: Contended that the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation was correct, citing the Defendant's positive drug test, admissions of cocaine use, and violation of a restraining order as sufficient evidence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the probation revocation hearing was untimely.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied as non-viable, and the decision of the district court to revoke the Defendant's probation was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (JULIE J. VARGAS, J., and KRISTINA BOGARDUS, J., concurring):
  The Court found that the district court had discretion under Rule 5-805(L) NMRA to dismiss or not dismiss the motion to revoke probation for violating time limits, and in this case, chose not to dismiss (para 2). The Court also held that the evidence presented, including the Defendant's positive test for cocaine, his admissions of cocaine use, and violation of a restraining order, were sufficient to support the revocation of his probation (para 2). The Defendant's argument for dismissal based on the timeliness of the hearing was not persuasive, as the current version of Rule 5-805(L), which allows for discretionary dismissal, was applicable at the time of the Defendant's revocation hearing (para 3). The Court also addressed the Defendant's request to amend the docketing statement to include a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to present an expert witness on the possibility of a false positive drug test. The Court denied this motion, stating that without an adequate record, it could not determine that trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance and noted a preference for such claims to be adjudicated in habeas corpus proceedings (paras 4-6).