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 and faced revocation for two reasons: consuming drugs and failing to report to Adult Probation and Parole for supervision. The appeal focused solely on the latter, challenging the district court's finding that the Defendant's failure to report was willful.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence presented at the probation revocation hearing was insufficient to establish that his failure to report for probation supervision was willful. Contended that there was contradictory evidence demonstrating his belief that his probation was no longer supervised following his release from prison.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Presented evidence that the Defendant was informed of his probation status and the requirement to report for supervision, including a signed Probation Notification document.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Defendant's failure to report for probation supervision was willful.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the district court's revocation of the Defendant's probation was affirmed.

Reasons

• ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge, with MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge, and SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge, concurring, found that the State met its burden of proof by presenting evidence that the Defendant was informed of his requirement to report to probation. The court noted that willfulness is generally presumed upon proof of a probation violation and that the district court judge, as fact-finder, was entitled to reject the Defendant's version of events. The appellate court emphasized its role does not include reweighing evidence but rather viewing it in a light most favorable to the State and supporting the district court's judgment. The decision to affirm the probation revocation was based on the sufficiency of evidence regarding the Defendant's notification of probation requirements and the willful nature of the violation (paras 2-5).