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 arrested for violating the terms of his probation. The probation office failed to serve the district attorney with a written violation or summary report within the five-day period required by Rule 5-805(E) NMRA. The Defendant argued that this procedural failure warranted dismissal of the motion to revoke his probation. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the arresting officer lacked the required written notice of the probation violation.

Procedural History

• District Court, Lea County: The district court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the State's motion to revoke probation and subsequently revoked the Defendant's probation.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the probation office's failure to serve the district attorney within the five-day period mandated by Rule 5-805(E) NMRA required dismissal of the motion to revoke probation. Additionally, the Defendant claimed that the arresting officer's lack of written notice of the probation violation rendered the revocation improper.
• State-Appellee: Contended that the procedural delay in serving the district attorney did not warrant dismissal, as the Defendant failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the delay. The State also argued that the Defendant's claim regarding the arresting officer's lack of written notice was not properly preserved for appeal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the probation office's failure to serve the district attorney within the five-day period required by Rule 5-805(E) NMRA necessitated dismissal of the motion to revoke probation.
• Whether the revocation of probation was improper due to the arresting officer's lack of written notice of the probation violation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss and upheld the revocation of the Defendant's probation.

Reasons

Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Kennedy and Robles JJ. concurring):

The Court held that the probation office's failure to serve the district attorney within the five-day period required by Rule 5-805(E) NMRA did not necessitate dismissal of the motion to revoke probation. The rule does not explicitly provide for dismissal as a remedy for such a procedural violation, and the Defendant failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the delay. The Court emphasized that procedural delays in probation revocation proceedings only violate due process if the probationer can establish prejudice, which was not shown in this case.

The Court declined to address the Defendant's argument regarding the arresting officer's lack of written notice of the probation violation, as this issue was not properly raised in the Defendant's docketing statement or preserved in the district court. The Court noted that appellate review is limited to issues that were squarely raised and preserved below.