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 reported for being in a parking lot, wearing a red jersey, and allegedly waving a gun in a Pontiac. Upon arrival, Deputy Barnes saw the Defendant and initiated a pursuit when the Defendant began to run. After being ordered to stop, the Defendant complied, was detained, and found in possession of a substance that field tested positive for heroin (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that the Defendant violated probation by resisting, evading, and obstructing an officer and for trafficking in a controlled substance. Additionally, the State alleged the Defendant was in possession of heroin, violating a standard condition of probation (para 3).
• Defendant-Appellant: Contested the sufficiency of the evidence for the probation revocation, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to establish possession of a controlled substance and violation of state law by fleeing from a police officer (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Defendant was in possession of a controlled substance.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Defendant violated state law by fleeing from a police officer.

Disposition

• The district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, with J. Miles Hanisee authoring and Judges Linda M. Vanzi and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, held that the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of probation. The Court found that Deputy Barnes' testimony that the Defendant ran away after the deputy activated his emergency lights and ordered him to stop supported a finding that the Defendant violated state law by evading an officer. The Court also noted that the district court could conclude that the Defendant was aware that Deputy Barnes was attempting to stop him based on the circumstances of the pursuit. The Court decided it was unnecessary to address the Defendant's argument regarding the possession of a controlled substance since sufficient grounds existed to support revocation on the basis of evading an officer (paras 5-7).