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 specific condition not to visit places where children under eighteen gather without prior permission from his Probation Parole Officer (PPO). Allegedly, the Defendant attended the Otero County Fair, which was considered a violation of this probation condition due to the presence of rides, games for minors, and areas where children exhibited animals and craftwork. The Defendant admitted to attending the fair but claimed he stayed within the craft and animal areas, believing this did not constitute a violation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the probation condition did not provide adequate notice that attending the fair would be a violation, claiming a lack of willful violation due to insufficient notice regarding the fair being a prohibited area.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant willfully violated the probation condition by attending the fair without obtaining prior permission, emphasizing that the fair clearly fell within the types of places the Defendant was required to avoid.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation.
• Whether the Defendant had adequate notice that attending the fair constituted a violation of his probation conditions.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the probation revocation order was affirmed.

Reasons

• Judges Jane B. Yohalem, J. Miles Hanisee, and Zachary A. Ives concurred in the opinion. The court found that the State had met its burden of proving a probation violation to a reasonable certainty. It was determined that the condition of probation was not vague and that a county fair would reasonably be considered a place where children under eighteen gather. The court applied principles of contract construction to the probation order to determine the adequacy of notice and found that the Defendant had adequate notice that his actions could constitute a violation. The court also noted that willfulness in violating probation is generally presumed once a violation is established, and the Defendant did not demonstrate that the violation was not willful or beyond his control. The fact-finder's role in assessing credibility was highlighted, with the court affirming the district court judge's rejection of the Defendant's version of events and conclusion that the violation was willful (paras 1-8).