State v. Villiarimo
Annotate this CaseDefendant entered a no contest plea to a charge of sexual assault in the third degree. Defendant later tested positive for methamphetamine use in violation of his probation. Defendant’s probation officer subsequently filed a motion requesting a revocation of Defendant’s probation. During trial, the family court denied Defendant’s request for a continuance to obtain the testimony of a physician, who could have informed the court of whether Defendant was decompensating at the time of the violations. The court then revoked Defendant’s probation and sentenced him to five years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the family court abused its discretion in denying his request for a continuance and in revoking his probation where the evidence did not indicate that he willfully and inexcusably failed to comply with the conditions of his probation. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) inasmuch as Defendant satisfied the “good cause” standard in his request for a continuance, the family court abused its discretion in denying his request; and (2) in determining whether Defendant inexcusably failed to comply with a substantial requirement imposed by the probation order, the court must apply a test articulated within this opinion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.