State v. Hammond
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. A-1-CA-36639 5 MICHAEL HAMMOND, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 8 Lisa B. Riley, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 13 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 HANISEE, Judge. 18 {1} Defendant appeals from the revocation of his probation. We previously issued 19 a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Defendant 1 has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Because we 2 remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s assertions of error, we uphold the revocation of 3 Defendant’s probation. 4 {2} The pertinent background information was previously set forth in the notice of 5 proposed summary disposition. We will avoid undue reiteration here, focusing instead 6 on the content of the memorandum in opposition. 7 {3} Defendant renews his argument that the State failed to prove that he violated 8 the terms and conditions of his probation. [MIO 5-6] However, as we previously 9 observed, the State met its burden of proof by presenting the testimony of Defendant’s 10 probation officer, establishing that Defendant failed to report as required. [MIO 5] 11 This is sufficient to support the revocation of Defendant’s probation. See, e.g., State 12 v. Jimenez, 2003-NMCA-026, ¶¶ 5, 10-11, 17, 133 N.M. 349, 62 P.3d 1231 13 (observing that the probation officer’s testimony that the defendant had failed to report 14 was sufficient to support the revocation of his probation), rev’d on other grounds, 15 2004-NMSC-012, 135 N.M. 442, 90 P.3d 461. Defendant’s assertions to the contrary 16 do not require a different result. [MIO 5] 17 {4} In his memorandum in opposition Defendant further argues that the State failed 18 to present sufficient evidence to establish another of the alleged violations, concerning 19 the non-payment of fees and costs. [MIO 6] However, in light of the sufficiency of the 2 1 evidence to establish the previously discussed violation, this is immaterial. See State 2 v. Leon, 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 37, 292 P.3d 493 (“[A]lthough [the d]efendant 3 challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each of his probation violations, 4 if there is sufficient evidence to support just one violation, we will find the district 5 court’s order was proper.”). 6 {5} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed 7 summary disposition, we affirm. 8 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 11 WE CONCUR: 12 13 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 14 15 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, 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.
