State v. Aslin, 457 P.3d 249

Jeffrey Aslin pleaded guilty to methamphetamine trafficking; nine-year sentence suspended with three years supervised probation.
After a positive alcohol test in Dec. 2014, Aslin agreed to participate in the First Judicial District’s temporary Technical Violation Program (TVP) under a provisional administrative order.
While in the TVP, Aslin had two positive meth tests in 2015 and served progressive short jail sanctions; his probation officer then directed him to enter a Community Corrections/treatment program.
Aslin failed to enroll in the mandated treatment and was arrested on new charges in Oct. 2015; the State filed to revoke probation for (1) new offenses and (2) failure to enter treatment; the court found insufficient proof of new offenses but found Aslin failed to enroll and held this was not a mere technical violation, revoking probation.
On appeal the Court of Appeals held the TVP’s definition conflicted with Rule 5-805(C), construed Rule 5-805(C) to define any non-new-charge violation as a “technical violation,” reversed revocation, and ordered TVP sanction; the State petitioned for certiorari.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of Rule 5-805(C) (holding districts retain discretion to define technical violations except they may not include new criminal charges), and remanded for determination whether Aslin’s failure to enroll fits the TVP definition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper interpretation of Rule 5-805(C)’s phrase “technical violation means any violation that does not involve new criminal charges”	The Court of Appeals (as pressed by Aslin) read that phrase to mean all non-new-charge violations are technical and thus subject to TVP sanctions	State argued Rule 5-805(C) grants districts discretion to define which non-new-charge violations are "technical" for the local TVP; the rule only bars inclusion of new criminal charges as technical violations	Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeals: Rule 5-805(C) allows each district to define technical violations for its TVP, so long as new criminal charges are excluded

State v. Aslin, 421 P.3d 843 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018) (Court of Appeals’ interpretation that all non-new-charge violations are technical)
Allen v. LeMaster, 267 P.3d 806 (N.M. 2012) (de novo review applies to interpretation of criminal procedure rules)
Kipnis v. Jusbsache, 388 P.3d 654 (N.M. 2017) (apply statutory construction principles to rules)
State v. Lopez, 154 P.3d 668 (N.M. 2007) (probation’s primary goal is rehabilitation)
State v. Rivera, 82 P.3d 939 (N.M. 2004) (probation statutes give sentencing court broad power to ensure rehabilitation)
State v. Martinez, 656 P.2d 911 (N.M. Ct. App. 1982) (sentencing court’s options when probation is violated)
Ex parte Bates, 151 P. 698 (N.M. 1915) (historical recognition of court’s discretion in suspending sentences)