State v. Gonzales, A-1-CA-40343

CitationA-1-CA-40343
Case DateSeptember 22, 2022
CourtCourt of Appeals of New Mexico

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.

JULIAN GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-1-CA-40343

Court of Appeals of New Mexico

September 22, 2022


Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRANT COUNTY James B. Foy, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Mary Barket, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, JUDGE

{¶1} Defendant appealed following the revocation of his probation. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.

1

{¶2} In his docketing statement Defendant raised two issues, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to establish a probation violation and contending that the State failed to demonstrate the validity of his prior convictions for sentencing purposes. In his memorandum in opposition Defendant renews both arguments. [MIO 1-8]

{¶3} With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence, Defendant continues to assert that his own testimony established that his failures to report to his probation officer were not willful. [MIO 6] However, as we previously observed, [CN 2-3] the evidence was susceptible to conflicting inferences, and ultimately, the district court was not required to credit Defendant's testimony or adopt his view. See, e.g., State v. Martinez, 1989-NMCA-036, ¶¶ 6-11, 108 N.M. 604, 775 P.2d 1321 (concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of probation, notwithstanding the defendant's assertion that he failed to report his arrest because he was initially constrained from so doing and later believed it was too late, where the probation officer testified that the defendant could have satisfied the condition, but he did nothing after an unsuccessful initial attempt). See generally State v. Sutphin, 1988-NMSC-031, ¶ 21, 107 N.M. 126, 753 P.2d 1314 ("The fact[-]finder may reject [the] defendant's version of the incident."); State v. Aslin, 2018-NMCA-043, ¶ 9, 421 P.3d 843 ("[O]nce the state establishes to a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT