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 he committed numerous, serious violations of the conditions of his probation. The specific nature of these violations is not detailed in the provided text.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the revocation of his probation (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Presented evidence that the Defendant committed numerous, serious violations of his probation conditions, arguing this was sufficient for revocation (para 3).

Legal Issues

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

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision to revoke the Defendant's probation (para 4).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Jonathan B. Sutin and Cynthia A. Fry concurring, the Court found the State met its burden of proof by presenting evidence of the Defendant's serious probation violations. The Court noted that the State was not required to charge or convict the Defendant of all alleged offenses to prove a probation violation. The decision to revoke probation was upheld based on the principle that proof of a probation violation need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt but must merely convince a reasonable and impartial mind of the violation (para 3).