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 when the State filed a motion to revoke his probation, alleging violations. The probation officer reported multiple unsuccessful attempts to locate the Defendant, including home visits and inquiries with family members. The Defendant was eventually seen at a funeral, but he did not turn himself in until later. The State argued that the Defendant was a fugitive from justice during the period he could not be located (paras 1, Issue 3).

Procedural History

• District Court, Curry County: The Defendant's probation was revoked, and the court denied his motion to dismiss the revocation proceedings and his request for credit for time served on probation while he was considered a fugitive (headnotes, paras 1, Issue 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State violated Rule 5-805(F) NMRA by delaying the filing of the motion to revoke probation for nearly a year after receiving the probation violation report. He also claimed that his due process rights were violated because his probation officer did not personally participate in all attempts to locate him. Additionally, he challenged the denial of credit for time served on probation while he was considered a fugitive (paras 1, Issues 1-3).
• State-Appellee: Contended that Rule 5-805(F) NMRA was not violated because the motion to revoke probation was filed within five days of the Defendant's arrest, and the hearing was timely. The State also argued that the Defendant's due process rights were not infringed, as testimony from other officers and stipulations provided sufficient evidence. Finally, the State maintained that the Defendant was a fugitive from justice, and the denial of probation credit was supported by substantial evidence (paras 1, Issues 1-3).

Legal Issues

• Did the State violate Rule 5-805(F) NMRA by delaying the filing of the motion to revoke probation?
• Were the Defendant's due process rights violated due to the probation officer's limited participation in attempts to locate him?
• Was the district court correct in denying the Defendant credit for time served on probation while he was considered a fugitive?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation and deny his motion to dismiss.
• The Court also upheld the denial of credit for time served on probation while the Defendant was considered a fugitive (paras 1, Issues 1-3).

Reasons

Per Wechsler J. (Bustamante and Sutin JJ. concurring):

• Rule 5-805(F) Compliance: The Court held that Rule 5-805(F) NMRA requires the State to act after the Defendant's arrest, not upon receiving the probation violation report. Filing the motion to revoke probation within five days of the Defendant's arrest and holding the hearing in a timely manner constituted substantial compliance with the rule. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument for dismissal (para 1, Issue 1).

• Due Process: The Court found no due process violation. Although the probation officer did not participate in all attempts to locate the Defendant, other officers testified, and the Defendant stipulated to the substance of their testimony. The Defendant had the opportunity to confront witnesses, satisfying his Fourteenth Amendment rights (para 1, Issue 2).

• Credit for Time Served: The Court determined that substantial evidence supported the district court's finding that the Defendant was a fugitive from justice. The State made multiple attempts to locate him, including home visits, inquiries with family members, and sending a letter. The Court also found that the State's efforts before and after the issuance of the bench warrant were relevant and sufficient. The denial of probation credit was upheld (para 1, Issue 3).