Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,882 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
State v. Martinez - cited by 141 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. BEDAW
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
MICHAEL BEDAW,
Defendant-Appellant.
NO. 29,584
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
September 14, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY, Teddy L.
Hartley, District Judge
COUNSEL
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender, Allison H. Jaramillo, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge. WE CONCUR: LINDA M. VANZI, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
AUTHOR:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VIGIL, Judge.
Defendant appeals the revocation of his probation. In our notice, we proposed to affirm. Defendant has timely responded. We have considered his arguments and finding them unpersuasive, we affirm.
On appeal, Defendant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to support the probation revocation. In our notice, we stated the standard of review, pointing out that the violation needed proof only to incline a reasonable and impartial mind to the belief that Defendant violated the terms of his probation. State v. Martinez, 108 N.M. 604, 606, 775 P.2d 1321, 1323 (Ct. App. 1989). Defendant acknowledges this, but asserts that due process requires that the violations be established to a reasonable certainty. We agree. However, we conclude that the evidence presented satisfied due process.
Defendant argues that the district court findings regarding his violation of the conditions of probation were based on testimony lacking personal knowledge and testimony that may not have been competent. Even assuming that such testimony should be ignored, Defendant’s probation officer testified about the violations and that testimony is sufficient to support the revocation.
For the reasons stated herein and in the calendar notice, we affirm the revocation of Defendant’s probation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
WE CONCUR:
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge