January 22, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Crystal Bustamante, No. A-1-CA-37670

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 	STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 	Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 	v. 	No. A-1-CA-37670
5 	CRYSTAL BUSTAMANTE,
6 	Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY
8 Lee A. Kirksey, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 	Santa Fe, NM
11 	for Appellee
12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
13 	William A. O'Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender
14 	Santa Fe, NM
15 	for Appellant
16 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 VANZI, Chief Judge.
18 	{t} 	Defendant appeals from a district court order revoking her probation. We
19 	issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a
20 memorandum in opposition. Not persuaded, we affirm.
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 1/22/2019 9:46 AM
Mark Reynolds

1 {2} 	Defendant continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the
2 revocation of her probation. "In a probation revocation proceeding, the [s]tate bears
3 the burden of establishing a probation violation with a reasonable certainty." State v.
4 Leon, 2013-NMCA-Ol l, ,-r 36,292 P.3d 493. "To establish a violation of a probation
5 agreement, the obligation is on the [s]tate to prove willful conduct on the part of the
6 probationer so as to satisfy the applicable burden of proof." In Re Bruno R.,
7 2003-NMCA-057, 	il 	11, 	133 	N.M. 	566, 	66 	P.3d 	339; 	State 	v. 	Martinez,
8 1989-NMCA-036, ,-r 8, 108 N.M. 604, 775 P.2d 1321 (explaining that probation
9 should not be revoked where the violation is not willful, in that it resulted from
10 factors beyond a probationer's control).
11 	{3} 	Here, the State alleged that Defendant violated numerous conditions of
12 probation. [RP 230-31] The 	State's petition summarized facts in support of these
13 	violations. 	[RP 234] 	Defendant conceded that she did not appear at several
14 appointments with her probation officer. [MIO 1] However, she claimed that her
15 	domestic partner initially prevented her from going to some of the appointments, and
16 that she thereafter did not go because she claimed that the probation officer treated
17 her unfairly. [MIO 2-3] The district court, sitting as fact-finder, was free to reject
18 Defendant's veracity or that these violations were not wilful. See State v. Sutphin,
2

1 1988-NMSC-031, 121, 107 N.M. 126, 753 P.2d 1314 (noting that the fact-finder is
2 	free to reject a defendant's version of events).
3 	{4} 	For the reasons set forth above, we affirm.
4 	{5} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6 	LIN~~..
7 WE CONCUR:
8~-~~9 JULJ. vAGAS,dge
10 	~Ei2r11 	JEN~.ATTREP,Judge
3