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 was alleged to have been unsuccessfully discharged from a rehabilitation facility. The revocation of his probation was based on uncorroborated officer testimony regarding this discharge (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court, Lea County: The district court revoked the Defendant's probation based on the officer's testimony (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the uncorroborated officer testimony was insufficient to support the revocation of his probation and claimed that his right of allocution was violated (paras 2-3).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Was the uncorroborated officer testimony sufficient to support the revocation of the Defendant's probation?
- Did the district court violate the Defendant's right of allocution?
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation (para 4).
Reasons
Per Hanisee J. (Attrep and Duffy JJ. concurring): The Court found that the Defendant did not contest the officer's testimony, which meant it did not require further corroboration. Therefore, the evidence was deemed sufficient to support the probation revocation. Regarding the right of allocution, the Court concluded that the Defendant was given an opportunity to address the district court after the close of evidence but before sentencing, satisfying the requirement for allocution (paras 2-4).