State v. Vazquez, 330 P.3d 760

Vazquez appeals an order revoking and reinstating probation for a 2012 conviction mix (possession of a forged writing, 3rd-degree felony, and attempted possession/use of a controlled substance, class A misdemeanor).
Original sentencing suspended prison terms with probation and an additional 365 days in NUCCC for programming, all concurrent.
In 2018, AP&P filed affidavits alleging probation violations (failure to pay restitution/fees; later positive drug tests and failure to report contact).
Vazquez admitted the allegations at an order-to-show-cause hearing, and the district court requested a new PSI while setting a sentencing date.
The PSI recommended revocation and prison; Vazquez urged reinstatement to probation to pay obligations and complete treatment.
The district court revoked, then reinstated and restarted probation, imposing 1 year in jail with time served and requiring additional treatment, describing probation as zero-tolerance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revoking and reinstating probation was proper rather than imposing the original sentence	Vazquez argues for outright revocation and prison term.	State contends court properly revoked and restarted probation with conditions.	Affirmed; district court did not simply revoke but restarted probation.
Whether a willfulness finding was required or the relapse realities were properly considered	Vazquez contends the court must find willful violations and consider addiction realities.	State argues admission made evidentiary finding unnecessary and willfulness need not be shown.	No willfulness finding required given admission; court's consideration of addiction realities supported.
Whether failure to preserve certain challenges on revocation affects review	Vazquez contends errors in revocation/recall of evidentiary hearing should be reviewed.	State notes preservation failures and reaffirms discretionary ruling.	Preservation lapses and discretion support affirmance.

State v. Hodges, 798 P.2d 270 (Utah Ct.App.1990) (written findings not always necessary if record reveals basis and reasons for revocation)
State v. Rhodes, 818 P.2d 1048 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (probation decisions involve discretion; abuse only if unreasonable)