State v. Lundvall
35,553
| N.M. Ct. App. | May 8, 2017Background
- Defendant was subject to probation and charged with violations for failing to report to his probation officer and failing to call the Norchem drug-testing hotline.
- Evidence at the revocation hearing included probation officer testimony and Defendant’s own testimony about his conduct and circumstances.
- Defendant testified he was homeless, had been struck by a vehicle and hospitalized with a leg injury in a cast, and left one voicemail for his probation officer explaining his situation.
- Probation officer testified Defendant left only one message and did not return a directed call to report immediately; officer also attempted an in-person visit and did not find Defendant at home or get a response.
- The district court revoked Defendant’s probation; Defendant appealed arguing the State failed to prove the violations were willful and separately challenged a prior four-year enhancement as unlawful.
- The appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence to infer willfulness and rejecting Defendant’s attempt to relitigate the prior enhancement under law-of-the-case/issue-preclusion principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probation violations were proved willful | State: Officer and Defendant testimony supported an inference of willfulness | Defendant: Failures were non-willful due to homelessness, hospitalization, and his voicemail explanation | Court: Affirmed — factfinder could infer willfulness and reject Defendant’s explanations |
| Whether Defendant can challenge prior four-year enhancement now | State: Enhancement is settled; preclusion applies | Defendant: Prior enhancement was illegal and should be reexamined | Court: Affirmed — law of the case/issue preclusion bars relitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bruno R., 133 N.M. 566, 66 P.3d 339 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (discusses burden to prove willfulness in probation revocation proceedings)
- State v. Motes, 118 N.M. 727, 885 P.2d 648 (N.M. 1994) (intent is subjective and usually inferred from surrounding facts)
- State v. Rojo, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (N.M. 1998) (trial court may disbelieve defendant’s explanations; appellate review views evidence in light most favorable to the decision)