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, Stephen Aguilar, entered a no contest plea to the charge of possession of a firearm or destructive device by a felon, a fourth-degree felony. Subsequently, his probation was revoked due to allegations of purchasing, selling, owning, or possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon, which violated the conditions of his probation (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in revoking his probation because his due process right to confront witnesses was violated when the court relied on a non-testifying witness’s statement for possession of a weapon. Additionally, claimed there was insufficient evidence to support the probation revocation (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the issue raised by the Defendant was unpreserved for appeal and should only be reviewed for fundamental error. The State maintained that sufficient evidence was presented at the probation revocation hearing to support the revocation (paras 2-3, 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's reliance on a non-testifying witness's statement to revoke the Defendant's probation violated his due process right to confront witnesses.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of the Defendant's probation but remanded for entry of a corrected written order to omit the erroneous finding that the Defendant admitted allegations against him (para 9).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Henderson writing and Judges Attrep and Ives concurring, determined that the Defendant's due process claim was unpreserved for appeal because he failed to specifically alert the district court to a claim of constitutional error during the probation revocation hearing. The Court reviewed for fundamental error and found that, even assuming the district court erred by admitting hearsay testimony, the error was not fundamental as it did not result in a miscarriage of justice or undermine the integrity of the judicial system (paras 2-5). Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court concluded that the testimony provided at the hearing, including the presence of an AK-47 in the Defendant's truck that matched the description of the weapon used in an aggravated assault, was sufficient to support the revocation of probation (para 7).