Description:

Alamogordo, New Mexico drug possession criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant.

The State of New Mexico sought to revoke Defendant's probation and reinstated Defendant's probation for a five-year term, equal to her original probation sentence. The State's petition was premised upon allegations that Defendant "consumed, bought, sold, distributed or possessed a controlled substance which was not legally prescribed to her." At the adjudicatory hearing, Defendant's probation officer testified that Defendant admitted use of methamphetamine, tested positive for methamphetamine on a saliva test, and signed a written admission form regarding her use, although the form was not attached to the probation report.

Outcome: At the adjudicatory hearing, the probation officer provided testimony that Defendant violated the terms of her probation based on her admitted use of methamphetamine, the positive drug test results, and Defendant's signed written admission form. [BIC 11] This evidence amply supports the district court's determination that Defendant violated the terms and conditions of her probation. See State v. Leyba, 2009-NMCA-030, ¶¶ 16-18, 145 N.M. 712, 204 P.3d 37 (holding that the defendant's admission was sufficient to establish a probation violation); State v. Leon, 2013-NMCA-011, ¶¶ 37-39, 41, 292 P.3d 493 (holding that a probation officer's testimony was sufficient to establish a violation and to support revocation of probation). To the extent Defendant implies that her constitutional right against self-incrimination precluded her from contesting the probation officer's testimony, she nonetheless explicitly states in her brief in chief that she does not assert a claim of a violation of such right. [BIC 26] We therefore decline to further address any implied argument Defendant raises in that regard.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm.

State v. Espana, A-1-CA-41986 (N.M. App. Sep 12, 2024)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: