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, James Wilson, was on probation for four different cases. He admitted to violating probation in another, separate case. The district court revoked his probation in all four cases due to the violation. The Defendant appealed the revocation, arguing that he was not serving a term of probation in these four cases at the time of the violation (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Lea County, Gary L. Clingman, District Judge: The district court’s order revoking probation and imposing judgment and sentence was affirmed.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court erred by revoking his probation in the four cases because he was not serving a term of probation in these cases at the time he violated probation in another case (para 1).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by revoking the Defendant's probation in four different cases due to a probation violation in another case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order revoking probation and imposing judgment and sentence (para 4).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Cynthia A. Fry, J., concurring): The Court considered the Defendant's argument but remained unpersuaded, affirming the district court's decision. The Defendant's attempt to preserve his argument on appeal by raising it orally in the district court was acknowledged (para 2). However, the Court found the precedent set in State v. Lopez controlling over the Defendant's reliance on State v. Franklin and State v. Boyer, leading to the affirmation of the district court's decision to revoke probation across the four cases in question (paras 2-3).