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 with a condition to adhere to a 6:00 p.m. curfew, extendable to 10:00 p.m. for attending Narcotics Anonymous (NA) or Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. The Defendant attended a movie that ended at 8:00 p.m., claiming it was part of his NA activities since he went with a person he was sponsoring in NA, who was experiencing an addiction crisis and needed a distraction. The Defendant believed this activity fell within the parameters of his extended curfew (paras 3-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant willfully violated his probation by not adhering to the curfew conditions set by the court (para 4).
• Defendant-Appellant (Wayne Levaldo): Contended that his probation was not willfully violated as attending the movie with his sponsee was in line with his NA activities, which he was mandated to participate in as part of his probation. He believed this action was within the curfew extension granted for NA/AA activities (paras 4-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant willfully violated his probation conditions by attending a movie past the 6:00 p.m. curfew under the belief it was a part of his NA activities.
• Whether the revocation of the Defendant's probation denied him his right to due process under the federal constitution and violated his rights under Article II, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution (paras 8-11).

Disposition

• The district court’s order revoking the Defendant’s probation was affirmed (para 12).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Linda M. Vanzi writing the opinion, and concurrence by Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee and Judge Briana H. Zamora, held that the State provided sufficient evidence of a willful probation violation by showing the Defendant was out past his curfew attending a movie. This shifted the burden to the Defendant to prove his non-compliance was not willful, which he failed to do convincingly as the only evidence to excuse his non-compliance was his own testimony, presenting a credibility issue for the district court to decide. The court was not required to accept the Defendant's claim that attending the movie was within the parameters of the later curfew for NA/AA activities. Additionally, the court found the arguments regarding due process and violation of rights under the New Mexico Constitution not viable for amendment in the docketing statement, as the Defendant did not demonstrate how these issues were preserved below or that the probation conditions were unclear regarding the curfew extension being applicable only to NA/AA meetings (paras 4-11).