This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions
on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this
electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other
deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and
does not include the filing date.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AMANDA ARCHULETA,
Defendant-Appellant.
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY,
Christina Argyres, District Judge
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General,
Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender,
Santa Fe, NM, Sergio J. Viscoli, Assistant Public Defender, Albuquerque, NM,
for Appellant
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge. WE CONCUR: JAMES
J. WECHSLER, Judge, RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
{1} Defendant has
appealed from the revocation of her probation. We previously issued a notice of
proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the district
court’s decision. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due
consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.
{2} The pertinent
background information was previously set forth in the notice of proposed
summary disposition. We will avoid undue repetition here, and focus instead on
the content of the memorandum in opposition.
{3} Defendant continues
to argue that the district court abused its discretion by revoking her
probation. [DS 6; MIO 5-6] However, in light of Defendant’s “pattern of
completing [only] one aspect of the program at a time and only after warrants
had to be issued[,]” [MIO 4] as well as Defendant’s ultimate failure to
demonstrate fulfillment of the counseling requirement, [MIO 4-6] the district
court acted well within its discretion.
See NMSA 1978, §
31-21-15(B)
(1989) (giving the court broad discretion when a probation violation is
established). Although we understand Defendant to suggest that lesser sanctions
would have been appropriate, [MIO 6] the district court reasonably differed in
its assessment.
In the final analysis, the district court was under no
obligation to continue Defendant’s probation.
See State v. Mendoza
1978-NMSC-048, ¶ 5,
91 N.M. 688,
579 P.2d 1255 (“Probation is not a right but a
privilege.”).
{4} Accordingly, for
the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we
affirm.
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge