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 involves the Defendant, who was on probation, and was found to have violated two conditions of his probation. The first condition required the Defendant to comply with all laws and not to endanger another person. The Defendant was involved in a domestic violence incident where he physically attacked a woman with whom he was living. The police responded to the incident, and the Defendant was charged with battery against a household member. The second condition required the Defendant to get permission from his probation officer before changing his residence. After the domestic violence incident, the Defendant left his residence before the police arrived and was later found by police at a new apartment (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant violated two conditions of his probation, involving an incident of domestic violence and changing his residence without permission from his probation officer.
• Defendant-Appellant: Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the revocation of his probation, particularly arguing there was no evidence he was now living at the new apartment he was found at after the domestic violence incident (paras 2-4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation based on the alleged violations.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court order revoking the Defendant's probation (para 5).

Reasons

• The decision was authored by J. MILES HANISEE, with Judges RODERICK T. KENNEDY and M. MONICA ZAMORA concurring. The Court found that the State had met its burden of establishing a probation violation with reasonable certainty. Regarding the domestic violence incident, testimony from a woman and the subsequent police response and charges provided sufficient evidence under the "reasonably certainty" standard to prove the Defendant violated the condition of his probation requiring him to comply with all laws and not endanger another person. As for the change of residence, the Court inferred that the Defendant had fled the residence on file with the probation officer following the domestic violence incident, satisfying the condition requiring permission for a change of residence. The Court concluded that the evidence supported a reasonable inference that the Defendant had violated his probation conditions (paras 2-4).