State v. Archuleta
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v. NO. 34,699 5 AMANDA ARCHULETA, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Christina Argyres, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 13 14 15 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM Sergio J. Viscoli, Assistant Public Defender Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellant 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 ZAMORA, Judge. 19 {1} Defendant has appealed from the revocation of her probation. We previously 20 issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the 1 district court’s decision. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due 2 consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm. 3 {2} The pertinent background information was previously set forth in the notice of 4 proposed summary disposition. We will avoid undue repetition here, and focus instead 5 on the content of the memorandum in opposition. 6 {3} Defendant continues to argue that the district court abused its discretion by 7 revoking her probation. [DS 6; MIO 5-6] However, in light of Defendant’s “pattern 8 of completing [only] one aspect of the program at a time and only after warrants had 9 to be issued[,]” [MIO 4] as well as Defendant’s ultimate failure to demonstrate 10 fulfillment of the counseling requirement, [MIO 4-6] the district court acted well 11 within its discretion. See NMSA 1978, § 31-21-15(B) (1989) (giving the court broad 12 discretion when a probation violation is established). Although we understand 13 Defendant to suggest that lesser sanctions would have been appropriate, [MIO 6] the 14 district court reasonably differed in its assessment. In the final analysis, the district 15 court was under no obligation to continue Defendant’s probation. See State v. 16 Mendoza 1978-NMSC-048, ¶ 5, 91 N.M. 688, 579 P.2d 1255 (“Probation is not a 17 right but a privilege.”). 18 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed 19 summary disposition, we affirm. 2 1 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 4 WE CONCUR: 5 6 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 7 8 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 3
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.
