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 required to participate in mental health and sex offender counseling as a condition of his probation. He signed a treatment agreement with a counseling provider, which included a confidentiality waiver. The Defendant later rescinded this waiver while in custody, leading to the termination of his counseling program. The State alleged that this constituted a violation of his probation terms. The Defendant argued that his incarceration, not the rescission of the waiver, caused the cessation of counseling.
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The Defendant’s probation was revoked based on allegations of failing to pay restitution and probation costs, and for willfully terminating his participation in counseling.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his probation. He contended that his incarceration, not the rescission of the confidentiality waiver, caused the termination of his counseling. He also claimed that he was unaware that rescinding the waiver would result in termination of treatment.
- Respondent (State): Asserted that the Defendant knowingly violated the terms of his probation by rescinding the confidentiality waiver, which led to the termination of his counseling. The State argued that the Defendant understood the consequences of his actions and that the district court’s findings were supported by sufficient evidence.
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the Defendant’s probation for failing to pay restitution and probation costs?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the Defendant’s probation for willfully failing to participate in and complete counseling?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order revoking the Defendant’s probation.
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Kennedy and Robles JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the State conceded there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Defendant failed to pay restitution and probation costs. Regarding the counseling requirement, the Court held that the evidence did not demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the Defendant willfully failed to participate in and complete counseling. The Court noted that the termination of counseling was primarily due to the Defendant’s incarceration, not his rescission of the confidentiality waiver. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the Defendant understood that rescinding the waiver would result in termination of treatment. The Court emphasized that the State failed to meet its burden of proof to establish a willful violation of probation conditions.