State v. Hardy, 33,955 33,956

Randy Hardy pleaded guilty in two separate matters and was placed on supervised probation in each.
After Hardy was arrested for attempted burglary on January 12, 2014, the State filed petitions to revoke probation in both cases; the petitions were heard together because the allegations were identical.
At the revocation hearing the State presented testimony from Hardy’s adult probation officer (APO Robles) who relied on the county detention roster and the police arrest report; no other evidence was offered.
Defense counsel did not object to the hearsay basis of APO Robles’s testimony, acknowledged limited confrontation rights in probation hearings, and did not present mitigating evidence or contest the allegation.
The district court found Hardy violated probation and sentenced him to ten months confinement followed by reinstated probation; Hardy appealed, raising due process/confrontation and ineffective-assistance claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hardy)	Held
Whether revocation based on hearsay violated due process by denying confrontation	Hearsay may be considered in an informal revocation hearing; issue not preserved	Revocation rested solely on hearsay without a district-court finding of good cause to deny confrontation	Court: Issue not preserved; on merits, no due-process violation because facts were uncontroverted and Guthrie spectrum favors admitting hearsay without live testimony
Whether failure to make/find good cause for denying confrontation was fundamental error	Preservation rules apply; no fundamental error shown	Failure to apply Guthrie factors is fundamental error warranting review	Court: Not fundamental error; no miscarriage of justice because allegation was uncontested and confrontation not required
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to hearsay testimony	Counsel’s conduct was reasonable given lack of contested facts	Counsel erred by not preserving confrontation and due-process arguments	Court: No prima facie ineffective-assistance; counsel’s decision was reasonable trial strategy given uncontroverted evidence
Appropriate remedy for alleged errors (if any)	No relief; revocation stands	Reversal or remand for proper confrontation analysis	Court: Affirmed revocation; no reversal or remand necessary

State v. Guthrie, 150 N.M. 84, 257 P.3d 904 (N.M. 2011) (articulates spectrum for when live confrontation is required in probation revocation hearings)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (sets due-process baseline for parole/probation revocation hearings: only contested relevant facts require full procedural protections)
State v. Vandenberg, 134 N.M. 566, 81 P.3d 19 (N.M. 2003) (preservation standard for appeals)
State v. Dylan J., 145 N.M. 719, 204 P.3d 44 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (standard of review for ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
State v. Hunter, 140 N.M. 406, 143 P.3d 168 (N.M. 2006) (deference to counsel’s strategic decisions)
State v. Caldwell, 143 N.M. 792, 182 P.3d 775 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (definition of fundamental error)