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 when the State filed a petition to revoke that probation, alleging violations of the probation conditions.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Defendant violated all of the probation conditions alleged in the State's petition to revoke probation.
• Appellee (State): Maintained that there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's decision to revoke Defendant's probation.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss based on violations of Rule 5-805 NMRA.

Disposition

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

Reasons

• MEDINA, Judge, HANISEE, Judge, and IVES, Judge, concurring: The Court considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition but found it unpersuasive, affirming the district court's decision to revoke probation. The Court highlighted that if there is sufficient evidence to support just one violation of probation conditions, the district court's order is proper (para 2). The Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not introduce any new facts, law, or arguments that could persuade the Court that the notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. Instead, it reiterated points made in the docketing statement without addressing the Court's analysis, failing to meet the requirement to specifically point out errors of law and fact (paras 2-4).