State v. Trujillo, 36,043

Defendant Adrian Trujillo was on probation and the State moved to revoke it for violation of probation conditions.
The asserted violation: Defendant changed his residence without obtaining prior permission from his probation officer (a standard condition).
At the revocation hearing the district court found Defendant violated probation, revoked probation, committed him to the Department of Corrections, and unsatisfactorily discharged him from probation.
On appeal, Defendant challenged only whether the State proved the probation violation (and whether the violation was willful).
The Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm; Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition arguing the violation was not willful.
The appellate court concluded Defendant did not present evidence showing nonwillfulness and affirmed the revocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved Defendant violated probation by changing residence without permission	State proved breach of a material probation condition (change of residence without officer approval)	The violation was not willful; it resulted from factors beyond his control	Court held State offered sufficient proof of breach; Defendant failed to show nonwillfulness, so revocation was within district court’s discretion

State v. Sanchez, 130 N.M. 602, 28 P.3d 1143 (recognizing State’s burden to prove probation violation with reasonable certainty)
State v. Martinez, 108 N.M. 604, 775 P.2d 1321 (standard for appellate review of probation revocation and proof convincing a reasonable mind)
In re Bruno R., 133 N.M. 566, 66 P.3d 339 (probation should not be revoked for nonwillful violations beyond probationer’s control)
State v. Parsons, 104 N.M. 123, 717 P.2d 99 (once State proves breach, defendant must produce evidence of nonwillfulness)