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 conditions that included registering as a sex offender, notifying his probation officer of any address changes, and wearing an ankle monitor. The Defendant failed to comply with these conditions by not registering as a sex offender, failing to notify his probation officer of a move, and cutting off his ankle monitor (paras headnotes, MIO 5).
Procedural History
- District Court, Curry County: The Defendant's probation was revoked, and he was remanded to the Department of Corrections to serve the remainder of his term.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued against the revocation of his probation, disputing the sufficiency of the evidence presented to establish violations of his probation conditions (paras headnotes, MIO 1).
- State-Appellee: Asserted that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation by failing to register as a sex offender, failing to notify his probation officer of a move, and cutting off his ankle monitor. The State argued that sufficient evidence was presented to support the revocation (paras headnotes, MIO 6).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to establish that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation?
- Did the district court abuse its discretion in revoking the Defendant's probation?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation and remand him to the Department of Corrections to serve the remainder of his term (paras headnotes, MIO 6).
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Vanzi and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The Court held that in probation revocation proceedings, the State must establish a violation with reasonable certainty, which does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented at the revocation hearing, including testimony that the Defendant failed to register as a sex offender, failed to notify his probation officer of a move, and cut off his ankle monitor, was sufficient to incline a reasonable and impartial mind to believe that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation. The Defendant also admitted to cutting off the ankle monitor and missing his registration appointment. The Court found no abuse of discretion by the district court in revoking the Defendant's probation (paras headnotes, MIO 5-6).