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 required to attend an inpatient treatment program as part of his conditions of release. He left the program prematurely and subsequently tested positive for methamphetamines, amphetamines, and THC. Additionally, he failed to report to his probation officer as ordered (paras 6 and 10).
Procedural History
- District Court of Lea County: The court revoked the Defendant's probation and committed him to the Department of Corrections for the remaining balance of his original sentence.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court's order violated his substantive due process rights by relying on inaccurate statements made by the State and hearsay from a nontestifying witness. He also claimed his right to allocution was violated as he was not allowed to interject during the State's comments (paras 1-3).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court violated the Defendant's due process rights by relying on allegedly inaccurate statements and hearsay.
- Whether the Defendant's right to allocution was violated during the probation revocation hearing.
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation (para 11).
Reasons
Per Hanisee J. (Medina C.J. and Bogardus J. concurring):
The court found that the Defendant's right to allocution was not violated as he was given an opportunity to speak for six minutes without interruption. The State's comments, which the Defendant challenged, were made after his statement, and the record did not support the claim that he was denied an opportunity to speak (paras 4-5). The court reviewed the State's comments for fundamental error due to the Defendant's failure to object during the hearing. It concluded that the comments were not misleading or materially incorrect, and the district court did not improperly rely on them (paras 6-8). Regarding the hearsay issue, the court noted that the Defendant did not challenge the other grounds for probation revocation, such as failing drug tests and not reporting to his probation officer, which were sufficient to uphold the revocation (para 10).