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

• In September 2013, the Defendant entered a plea and disposition agreement, which included probation with various terms, one of which required the Defendant to report any arrest within forty-eight hours. On January 19, 2016, the Defendant was arrested on a warrant but failed to report this arrest to his probation officer, leading to the State moving to revoke his probation (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Contended that the State failed to prove the probation violation was willful, arguing that his noncompliance should be excused because his arrest came to the attention of the Adult Probation and Parole Office (APPO) within the 48-hour reporting period (paras 7-8).
• Appellee (State): Argued that the Defendant's failure to report his arrest within the specified timeframe constituted a willful violation of the terms and conditions of his probation. The State relied on testimony from APPO Officer Rachel Hobbs to establish that the Defendant did not report his arrest as required (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's failure to report his arrest within forty-eight hours as required by the terms of his probation constituted a willful violation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation (para 10).

Reasons

• The Court, per Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges Stephen G. French and Jennifer L. Attrep concurring, held that the State met its burden of proving a willful violation of a material term or condition of the Defendant's probation. The Court applied an abuse of discretion standard, noting that noncompliance generally suffices to justify a finding of willfulness unless the defendant presents evidence to excuse the noncompliance. The Court found the Defendant's argument—that his noncompliance should be excused because the APPO was aware of his arrest within the 48-hour period—unavailing, citing the precedent that notice of an arrest from an independent source does not excuse a probationer's failure to comply with reporting requirements. The Court also noted that the Defendant made no effort to report his arrest and presented no evidence that he was prevented from doing so, making his situation less compelling than the probationer in a similar precedent case (paras 5-9).