State v. Galvan, A-1-CA-35197

Background

David Galvan pleaded guilty with consolidated sentences and received supervised probation instead of incarceration.
The State filed successive motions to revoke probation based on a Probation Violation Report (PVR) alleging: failure to report (Feb, Mar, May 2015), failure to report a change of residence, and new criminal charges (resisting/evading, failure to yield, no insurance).
Probation officers Muller and Barela testified about the missed report dates and home-contact efforts; Muller had limited personal contact and relied on office records; Barela testified from his own supervision and PVR he signed.
The district court admitted PVR-related testimony and judicially noticed a magistrate court judgment and sentence for the new convictions; it excluded testimony from officers about underlying facts of the new charges.
The court revoked Galvan’s probation on all alleged violations; Galvan appealed claiming due-process and confrontation violations from reliance on hearsay/unverified PVR entries.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admitting PVR-based hearsay without live testimony violated due process/confrontation	State: Live testimony not required where evidence is objective, corroborated, reliable, or documented; one proven violation suffices to uphold revocation	Galvan: Officers summarized PVRs they did not prepare; denial of chance to confront writers of PVRs denied minimum due process	Court: No violation — good cause existed to permit PVR-based testimony because allegations were routine/objective or based on officers with personal knowledge (and one officer testified from his own PVR)
Sufficiency of evidence to revoke probation (multiple alleged violations)	State: If at least one alleged violation is proven with reasonable certainty, revocation is upheld	Galvan: Without contested hearsay, evidence insufficient to support revocation	Court: State met burden as to at least one violation (May 2015 failure to report supported by Barela); other failures-to-report were objective and supported by reliable records/testimony
Use of judicial notice and effect of nolo contendere plea for failure-to-obey-law violation	State: Judgment and sentence are properly noticed and establish conviction for probation-violation purposes	Galvan: He should be allowed to cross-examine witnesses about the underlying facts of the new charges despite the judgment	Court: Judicial notice of the judgment/sentence was proper; conviction (including nolo contendere) suffices as a violation though officer could not testify to underlying facts
Whether district court had to make an explicit "good cause" finding before admitting hearsay testimony	State: Explicit formulaic finding not required if record shows good cause; reliability/probative value may suffice	Galvan: Court should make express good-cause findings when disallowing confrontation	Court: Express wording not required; record showed the functional equivalent of good cause and the evidence fell within circumstances where confrontation was unnecessary

Key Cases Cited

State v. Guthrie, 257 P.3d 904 (N.M. 2011) (establishes "good cause" standard for confrontation in probation revocation; distinguishes subjective vs. objective violations)
State v. Phillips, 126 P.3d 546 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (discusses limits on hearsay reliance in probation revocation)
State v. Leon, 292 P.3d 493 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (holding that proving any one viable violation supports revocation when multiple violations alleged)
State v. Vigil, 643 P.2d 618 (N.M. Ct. App. 1982) (addresses probative value of routine official records and hearsay reliability)
State v. Marquez, 731 P.2d 965 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986) (nolo contendere plea can form the basis for a criminal conviction in New Mexico)
State v. Rojo, 971 P.2d 829 (N.M. 1999) (standard for reviewing whether a trial court abused its discretion)