This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO , 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3
v. No. 34,688 4 JON MANUEL MORA, 5 Defendant - Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Angela J. Jewell, District Judge-Pro Tem 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 Kenneth H. Stalter, Assistant Attorney General 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 for Appellee 13 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 162 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 VIGIL, Chief Judge. 2 {1} Defendant appeals from a district court order revoking his probation. We issued 3 a calendar notice proposing to reverse. The State has filed a memorandum in 4 opposition. Not persuaded by the State’s memo randum, we reverse the district court. 5 {2} In this appeal, Defendant has challe nged the sufficiency of the evidence to 6 support the revocation of his probation. Initially , we reject the State’s position that this 7 case is moot because Defendant has served his full sentence. [MIO 4] Our 8 disagreement with the State is due to the fact that the revocation of probation in this 9 case could be viewed negatively by any c ourt considering the option of probation in 10 any future criminal proceeding involving Defendant. See generally State v. Sergio B ., 11 2002-NMCA-070, ¶ 10, 132 N.M. 375, 48 P. 3d 764 (observing that courts will 12 address merits of case that is otherwise moot where there may be future collateral 13 consequences). 14 {3} With respect to the merits, “[in] a pr obation revocation proceeding, the State 15 bears the burden of establishing a probation violation with a reasonable certainty.” See 16 State v. Leon , 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 36, 292 P.3d 493. “T o establish a violation of a 17 probation agreement, the obligation is on th e State to prove willful conduct on the part 18 of the probationer so as to satisfythe applicable burden of proof.” In Re Bruno R ., 193 2003-NMCA-057, ¶ 11, 133 N.M. 566, 66 P.3d 339; see also State v. Martinez , 1 1989-NMCA-036, ¶ 8, 108 N.M. 604, 775 P.2d 1321 (explaining that probation 2 should not be revoked where the violation is not willful, in that it resulted from factors 3 beyond a probationer’s control). 4 {4} The district court found that Defendant violated the condition of probation 5 relating to Defendant’s asso ciation with other individuals. [RP 128, 130] Specifically, 6 this condition of probation prohibited De fendant from associating with people 7 “identified” by Defendant’s probation officer to be “detrimental” to his probation 8 supervision. [RP 128] In this case, it app ears that the court based its finding on the 9 presence in Defendant’s residence of a woman who had drugs in her purse. The 10 district court did not find that Defendant knew about the drugs, or that he was aware 11 of information indicating th at he should not associate with her. Instead, the district 12 court determined that Defendant had anaffirmative obligation to inquire about 13 individuals he associated with to make sure that they were not “detrimental” to 14 probation. [MIO 8] However, the State’s position in effect expands the requirement 15 that a violation be willful to include situ ations where a defendant is negligent. As 16 explained above, our case law is clear that there must be a willful violation, and in the 17 absence of express language requiring Defe ndant to have made inquiries to his 18 associates, we believe the district court erred. Although the State contends that 194 Defendant could have simply asked the woman if she had drugs [MIO 10], the 1 definition of “detrimental” is so broad, th at a defendant would have to protect himself 2 by having a checklist of questions to ask each person he associates with. Again, in the 3 absence of any evidence indicating thatDefendant knew that the woman was 4 “detrimental,” we conclude that the evid ence is insufficient to support the revocation. 5 {5} For the reasons set forth above, we reverse. 6 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

_______________________________ 8 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 9

WE CONCUR: 10

___________________________________ 11 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 12

___________________________________ 13 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 14