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 allegations arose that he violated the terms of his probation. The specific evidence presented against him was contested, with the Defendant offering explanations for the alleged violations.

Procedural History

• District Court of Lea County: The Defendant's probation was revoked based on findings that he violated its terms.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the revocation of his probation. Additionally, he sought to amend the docketing statement to argue that the district court’s written sentence did not conform to its oral pronouncement.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the evidence was sufficient to support the probation revocation and opposed the Defendant’s motion to amend the docketing statement.

Legal Issues

• Was there sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the Defendant’s probation?
• Should the Defendant be allowed to amend the docketing statement to raise the issue of a discrepancy between the district court’s oral pronouncement and its written sentence?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of the Defendant’s probation.
• The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to amend the docketing statement.

Reasons

Per Sutin J. (Fry CJ. and Garcia J. concurring):

• The Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the revocation of the Defendant’s probation. The Defendant’s explanations for the evidence against him created conflicting evidence, which was within the district court’s discretion to resolve. The appellate court does not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations but instead assesses whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation.
• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied because the proposed issue was not viable. The Court explained that under New Mexico law, a judgment is not final or enforceable until it is in writing. Even if there was a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence, the written judgment controls.