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 and was required to report to her probation officer as per Standard Condition No. 2. The State alleged that the Defendant violated this condition by failing to report as ordered, failing to make any contact after sentencing, and by being of unknown whereabouts. The Defendant admitted to not reporting as required.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant violated her probation by failing to report to her probation officer as required, failing to make any contact after sentencing, and by being of unknown whereabouts.
• Defendant-Appellant (Perla Marquez): Admitted to not reporting as required but provided explanations for her failure to report.

Legal Issues

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

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation.

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Michael E. Vigil and M. Monica Zamora JJ. concurring: The Court found that the State had met its burden of establishing a probation violation with reasonable certainty. The probation officer's testimony that the Defendant failed to report as ordered and the Defendant's admission to this fact were sufficient to prove a willful violation of the probation agreement. The Court was entitled to reject the Defendant's explanations for her failure to report, concluding that the evidence supported the revocation of her probation (paras 2-4).