State v. Frederickson
35,727
| N.M. Ct. App. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- Defendant Donovan Frederickson was on probation; the district court issued a second order revoking probation and committing him to the Department of Corrections.
- The State alleged multiple probation violations including driving without a valid license, failing to maintain a traffic lane, and failing to seek/maintain employment.
- Trooper/Lieutenant Henderson testified he stopped Defendant on March 16, 2016 for crossing the lane line and that Defendant could not produce a valid driver’s license at the stop.
- Defendant did not produce evidence at the revocation hearing showing he had a valid license at the time of arrest or that any noncompliance was not willful.
- The Court of Appeals issued a proposed disposition to affirm; Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition and the panel considered it but was unpersuaded.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Frederickson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sufficient evidence supported revocation for driving without a valid license | Testimony that Defendant could not produce a license at the stop established the violation | Failure to show inability to produce a license is not proof he did not have a valid license | Affirmed: trooper testimony sufficient; Defendant produced no license at hearing |
| Whether the violation was willful (required for revocation) | Once State proves breach, defendant must show non-willfulness; Defendant offered no such evidence | Argued revocation requires a willful violation and that State did not prove willfulness | Affirmed: Defendant failed to rebut willfulness; court acted within discretion |
| Whether one proven violation suffices to uphold revocation despite other alleged breaches | A single proven violation can support revocation | Sought reversal based on insufficiency of proof overall | Affirmed: single sufficient violation (driving without valid license) supports revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martinez, 108 N.M. 604, 775 P.2d 1321 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (standard for probation-revocation review and sufficiency of proof tone)
- State v. Parsons, 104 N.M. 123, 717 P.2d 99 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986) (defendant bears burden to show non-willfulness once State proves breach)
- In re Bruno R., 133 N.M. 566, 66 P.3d 339 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (willfulness is a requirement for probation revocation)
- State v. Leon, 292 P.3d 493 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (a single sufficient probation violation may support revocation)
Decision: Affirmed — the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Defendant’s probation.