Opinion
No. 36,195
06-20-2017
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADAM B. SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY
Donna J. Mowrer, District Judge Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HANISEE, Judge. {1} Defendant appeals from the revocation of his probation. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Because we remain unpersuaded by Defendant's assertion of error, we uphold the revocation of Defendant's probation. {2} The pertinent background information was previously set forth. We will avoid undue reiteration here, focusing instead on the content of the memorandum in opposition. {3} Defendant continues to argue that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order sex offender supervision while he was on probation. [MIO 4] However, the district court's clarification that Defendant was subject to supervision as a sex offender did not actually represent a modification of the terms of his probation. [MIO 4] And in any event, in light of the probation authority's ability to impose such a requirement pursuant to the standard conditions, no action on the part of the district court was required. See State v. Green, 2015-NMCA-007, ¶¶ 10-14, 341 P.3d 10 (rejecting a challenge to the authority of the department of corrections to condition a probationer's release upon his being party to a sex offender behavior contract, notwithstanding the absence of any specific provision within the district court's judgment and sentence to that effect); State v. Leon, 2013-NMCA-011, ¶¶ 21, 24, 292 P.3d 493 (holding that a district court's enumeration of a special probationary condition requiring the defendant to "comply with any other reasonable condition specified by the Probation and Parole Division[,]" was sufficient to support the placement of a defendant on sex offender supervision). We therefore reject Defendant's jurisdictional challenge. {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm.
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ _________
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
WE CONCUR:
/s/ _________
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge /s/ _________
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge