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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,761 4 BOBBY KENTON, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Michael E. Martinez, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Mary Barket, Assistant Appellant Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 ZAMORA, Judge. 17 {1} Defendant appeals from the order revoking his probation. This Court issued a 182 notice of proposed disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Defendant has filed 1 a memorandum in opposition, which we haveduly considered. Unpersuaded, we 2 affirm. 3 {2} Defendant asserts that the district c ourt abused its discretion in revoking his 4 probation where insufficient evidence existed to support a violation. State v. Martinez , 5 1989-NMCA-036, ¶ 5, 108 N.M. 604, 775 P.2d 1321 (“We review the trial court’s 6 decision to revoke probation under an abuse of discretion.”). In this Court’s calendar 7 notice, we proposed to conclude that there was sufficient evidence to establish by a 8 reasonable certainty that Defendant violated his probation by failing to report to his 9 probation officer and by violating state law. [CN 4] Specifically, we proposed to 10 conclude that there was sufficient ev idence to support the district court’s 11 determination that Defendant violated C ondition 2 of his probation by failing to report 12 when Defendant absconded for a period of 45 days. Additionally, we proposed to 13 conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s conclusion 14 that Defendant violated Condition 1 of hi s probation when he violated state law by 15 concealing his identity when he gave officers false information. [CN 4] 16 {3} In response to this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, Defendant contends 17 that the State failed to establish that Defendant’s violations were willful. Defendant 183 contends that “[b]ecause [he] failed to comply with th e reporting requirement due to 1 factors beyond his control, he established that he did not willfullyfail to report on 2 December 26, 2014[, and h]is failure to report could not[,] th erefore[,] form the basis 3 for a probation revocation.” [MIO 6] Defendant asserts that “if violation of probation 4 is not willful . . . probation may not be revoked. ” [MIO 5 (citing In re Bruno R. , 2003- 5 NMCA-057, ¶ 13, 133 N.M. 566, 66 P.3d 339)] 6 {4} We acknowledge that willful conduct is a requisite. However, as we have 7 previously stated, “[o]nce the state offers proof of a breach of a material condition of 8 probation, the defendant must come forward with evidence [to show that his 9 non-compliance] was not willful.” State v. Parsons , 1986-NMCA-027, ¶ 25, 104 N.M. 10 123, 717 P.2d 99; see Martinez , 1989-NMCA-036, ¶ 8 (explaining that probation 11 should not be revoked where the violation is not willful, in that it resulted from factors 12 beyond a probationer’s control). “[I]f [the] defendant fails to carry his burden, then 13 the trial court is within its discreti on in revoking [the defendant’s probation].” 14 Martinez , 1989-NMCA-036, ¶ 8. 15 {5} In the present case, Defendant missed hi s meeting with his probation officer on 16 December 26, 2014. Defendant asserts th at he was hospitalized on December 26, 17 2014, but that he was released the same day. [MIO 3] Defendant asserts that, 184 afterwards, he attempted to report to the Adult Probati on Office, but the office had 1 moved. [MIO 3] An officer testified that the address for the new office was posted at 2 the old location. [Id.] Moreover, Defendant failed to check in for 45 days and was 3 eventually picked up by police. [Amended DS 3–4] Based on these facts, we conclude 4 that the evidence was sufficient to give ri se to a reasonable inference that Defendant 5 willfully failed to report. See generally State v. Romero , 1968-NMCA-078, ¶ 17, 79 6 N.M. 522, 445 P.2d 587 (“An inference is merely a logical deduction from facts and 7 evidence.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 8 {6} To the extent Defendant contends thatthe failure to report was based on 9 “factors beyond his control,” this Court’s decision in Martinezsupports affirmance. 10 In Martinez , the defendant alleged that he was unable to meet the probation 11 requirement that he inform his probation o fficer of a new arrest within 72 hours, due 12 to factors outside his control. There, the defendant was arrested at the beginning of a 13 long weekend, asked about c ontacting his probation officer and was told his probation 14 officer had already left, did not ask his pub lic defender to contact his probation officer 15 days later, and never notified his probation officer of his arrest. See Martinez , 1989- 16 NMCA-036, ¶ 6. This Court, in Martinez , concluded that “the evidence does not 17 support [the] defendant’s argument that this failure was through no fault of his own[,]” 185 id. ¶ 9, where the defendant was unable to reach his probation officer initially but 1 failed to avail himself of the opportunity to inform his probation officer once the 2 opportunity presented itself. Similarly, in the present case, Defendant being in the 3 hospital on the day of the meeting and discovering that the probation office had 4 moved does not account for the 45 days in which Defendant failed to report to his 5 probation officer. Thus, similar to this Court’s decision in Martinez , the evidence 6 supports a conclusion that the reasons for the violation were not out of Defendant’s 7 control, and, therefore, the district c ourt could properly conc lude that Defendant 8 willfully violated his probation. 9 {7} Finally, to the extent Defendant contends that revocation was not proper 10 because “the record does not establish if [the notice of change in address] was 11 adequately visible at the old office,” [MIO 7] we conclude that the State had satisfied 12 its burden by demonstrating “a breach of a material condition of probation,” and, thus, 13 it was Defendant’s obligation tocome forward with such evidence to demonstrate that 14 his non-compliance “was not willful.” See Parsons , 1986-NMCA-027, ¶ 25. 15 Therefore, the lack of such information in the record does not persuade us that 16 revocation was not proper. 176 {8} Thus, for the reasons stated above and in this Court’s notice of proposed 1 disposition, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the district 2 court’s determination that Defendant viol ated Condition 2 of his probation agreement. 3 Given that, as Defendant acknowledges, this Court may affirm the revocation if there 4 is sufficient evidence supporting just one violation, see State v. Leon , 2013-NMCA5 011, ¶ 37, 292 P.3d 493, we do not address Defendant’s vi olation of Condition 1 of 6 his probation. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Defendant’s probation. 7 {9} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

9 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

12 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 13

14 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 15