State v. Yazzie, A-1-CA-34928

Jerome Yazzie was convicted (Alford plea) in 2008 of criminal sexual contact with a six‑year‑old and received a 15‑year sentence with all but 5 years suspended and a sex‑offender probation term (5–20 years).
Upon release to supervised probation in 2012, the district court did not conduct the statutorily required initial Section 31‑20‑5.2(A) hearing nor the 2½‑year review under Section 31‑20‑5.2(B).
Yazzie signed a sex offender behavioral contract upon release setting out specific prohibitions (no contact with victim, no pornography, no deleting browser history); the district court’s order of probation also authorized compliance with probation officer instructions.
In 2015 the State moved to revoke probation, alleging Yazzie contacted his then‑14‑year‑old victim, accessed pornography, and deleted browser history—violations of the behavioral contract.
Yazzie moved to dismiss the revocation motion, arguing the court never imposed the behavioral‑contract conditions through the statutorily required hearings (he did not argue in district court that he lacked personal notice of the contract terms).
The district court denied the motion; Yazzie conditionally admitted the violation to preserve his appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed revocation.

Issue	State's Argument	Yazzie's Argument	Held
Whether Yazzie preserved and proved lack of notice of the behavioral‑contract conditions	Yazzie did not raise lack‑of‑notice in district court; he waived it and, having conditionally admitted the violations, eliminated the State’s need to prove notice	State failed to prove Yazzie knew the probation conditions; the State should have shown Yazzie received notice of the behavioral contract	Waived/Rejected — issue not preserved; Yazzie’s appellate attempt to demand proof of notice expands the argument made below and is not considered
Whether failure to hold statutorily required Section 31‑20‑5.2 hearings violated Yazzie’s due process rights and requires dismissal	Although statutory hearings were required, revocation need not be reversed absent prejudice from the statutory violation; Yazzie did not show prejudice or that the outcome would differ	Failure to hold the hearings violated the statute but did not violate due process absent a showing of prejudice	Rejected — court requires a showing of prejudice in probation‑revocation context; Yazzie made no showing, so revocation affirmed

State v. Green, 341 P.3d 10 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015) (behavioral contracts may be used with probation orders that reserve reasonable conditions to supervision)
State v. Guthrie, 257 P.3d 904 (N.M. 2011) (probation revocation proceedings do not afford the full panoply of criminal trial rights)
State v. Neal, 167 P.3d 935 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (to establish a due process violation in revocation, defendant must show prejudice)
State v. Bearly, 811 P.2d 83 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991) (statutory violations do not automatically require reversal in revocation contexts; prejudice is key)
Gonzales v. State, 805 P.2d 630 (N.M. 1991) (prejudice and intentional delay required to dismiss indictment for pre‑indictment delay)
State v. Hill, 125 P.3d 1175 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (prejudice required when evidence is lost or delay occurs; applies relevant tests)
Brooks v. Shanks, 885 P.2d 637 (N.M. 1994) (state‑created procedural protections can create liberty interests; bypassing those procedures may give rise to due process violation)