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The Defendant's probation was revoked after the State withdrew an offer of a sixty-day sanction for admitting to a single probation violation. The Defendant argued that the State's withdrawal of the offer was improper and that he detrimentally relied on it, leaving him unprepared to defend against multiple alleged violations (paras 1-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Lea County: The district court revoked the Defendant's probation and imposed the remainder of his sentence, including a one-year habitual offender enhancement (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State improperly withdrew its offer and that he detrimentally relied on it, leaving him unprepared to defend against multiple violations. He also contended that the district court had discretion not to impose the remainder of his sentence or the habitual offender enhancement (paras 2-7).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the State's withdrawal of its offer was improper.
- Whether the Defendant detrimentally relied on the State's offer.
- Whether the district court had discretion not to impose the remainder of the Defendant's sentence or the habitual offender enhancement.
- Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the probation violations.
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation and enhancing his sentence (para 11).
Reasons
Per Attrep CJ. (Hanisee and Henderson JJ. concurring): The court found that the Defendant did not provide authority to support that the State's withdrawal of its offer was improper or that he detrimentally relied on it. The court also determined that the district court exercised its discretion in imposing the remainder of the sentence and the habitual offender enhancement. The Defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court's decision was improper or that there was insufficient evidence to support the probation violations (paras 2-9).