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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 from 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. A-1-CA-37018 4 LORENZO GARCIA, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Michael Martinez, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 J.K. Theodosia Johnson, Assistant Public Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 VANZI, Chief Judge. 17
{1} Defendant Lorenzo Garcia appeals from the district court’s order revoking 18 probation. This Court’s calendar notice propos ed to summarily affirm. Defendant filed 192 a memorandum in opposition to the propos ed disposition. Not persuaded by 1 Defendant’s arguments, we affirm. 2
{2} The calendar notice proposed to conclude that the State’s circumstantial 3 evidence proved Defendant was the driver of the Thunderbird on the date in question 4 with reasonable certainty, on the basis that proof of a probation violation need not be 5 established beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Galaz , 2003-NMCA-076, ¶ 8, 133 6 N.M. 794, 70 P.3d 784. [CN 3] Defendant does not point to any error with regard to 7 this proposal, but argues that the calendar notice did not address the evidence 8 regarding possession of a firearm. [MIO 2] See State v. Mondragon , 1988-NMCA9 027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating a party responding to a summary 10 calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact), 11 superceded by statute as stated in State v. Harris , 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 12 374. Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that 13 he violated his probation by possessing a firearm because there wa s a passenger in his 14 car and he therefore did not have exclusiv e control over the car. [MIO 3] We affirm 15 the district court’s order on the basis thatthere was sufficient evidence to support the 16 single violation prohibiting Defendant from violating state laws. See State v. Leon , 17 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 37, 292 P.3d 493 (“[A ]lthough Defendant challenges the 18 sufficiency of the evidence supporting each of his probation violations, if there is 193 sufficient evidence to support just one violati on, we will find the district court’s order 1 was proper.”). 2
{3} Defendant continues to argue that the di strict court impermissibly shifted the 3 burden of proof from the State by considering his failure to rebut the evidence against 4 him. [MIO 4] The calendar notice proposed toaffirm on the basis that “[t]he burden 5 of proving a violation with reasonable certainty lies with the State,” State v. Green, 6 2015-NMCA-007, ¶ 22, 341 P.3d 10, and it is only after the State meets its burden of 7 proving the breach of a material condition that Defendant must present evidence to 8 excuse non-compliance. See Leon , 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 36. Defendant does not point 9 to any error in fact or law with the proposeddisposition, but continues to maintain that 10 the district court impermissibly shifted the burden to him to rebut the State’s evidence. 11 [MIO 4] See Mondragon , 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10 (stating th at the repetition of earlier 12 arguments does not fulfill the requirement of a defendant to respond to a proposed 13 disposition). We disagree. 14
{4} The State must first meet its burden of proving the violation of a material 15 condition of probation before a defendant is given an opportunity to present evidence 16 excusing non-compliance. See State v. Martinez , 1989-NMCA-036, ¶ 8, 108 N.M. 17 604, 775 P.2d 1321 (“Once the state offers proof of a breach of a material condition 18 of probation, the defendant must come forward with evidence to excuse 194 non-compliance.”). “[D]efendant is entitled topresent evidence and witnesses . . . in 1 an effort to convince the trial court that his failure to comply with conditions was 2 through no fault of his own.” Id . (citations omitted). We conclude that allowing 3 Defendant such an opportunity only after the State has met its initial burden of proof 4 is not an impermissible shifting of burdens. 5
{5} For all of these reasons, and those stated in the calendar notice, we affirm. 6
{6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

______________________________ 8 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 9

WE CONCUR: 10

___________________________ 11 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge 12

___________________________ 13 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge 14