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 case revolves around the Defendant's probation revocation. The Defendant was accused of violating a standard condition of his probation by changing his residence without obtaining prior permission from his probation officer.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Sandoval County, Louis P. McDonald, District Judge: The district court revoked the Defendant's probation, committed him to the Department of Corrections, and unsatisfactorily discharged him from probation.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant violated the conditions of his probation by failing to get permission from his probation officer before changing his residence.
• Defendant-Appellant (Adrian Trujillo): Contended that the evidence was insufficient to establish that his violation of probation conditions was willful.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State sufficiently proved that the Defendant violated the conditions of his probation.
• Whether the violation of probation conditions by the Defendant was willful.

Disposition

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

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The Court held that the State met its burden of establishing with reasonable certainty that the Defendant violated a standard condition of his probation by not obtaining permission from his probation officer before changing his residence (paras 2-3). The Court further noted that once the State proves a breach of a material condition of probation, the burden shifts to the Defendant to show that the non-compliance was not willful. The Court found no indication that the Defendant provided evidence to prove his non-compliance was not willful, aside from his assertion in his memorandum in opposition. Therefore, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the Defendant's probation (paras 4-5).