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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,940 4 JESUS JOSE LINAM, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Judith Nakamura, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 12 J.K. Theodosia Johnson, Assi stant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 HANISEE, Judge. 17
{1} Defendant appeals from a district court order revoking his probation. We issued 18 a calendar notice proposing to affirm. De fendant has responded with a memorandum 19 in opposition. We affirm. 202 {2} Defendant continues to challenge the su fficiency of the ev idence to support the 1 revocation of his probation. “In a probation revocation proceeding, the [s]tate bears 2 the burden of establishing a probation vi olation with a reasonable certainty.” State v. 3 Leon , 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 36, 292 P. 3d 493. “To establish a violation of a probation 4 agreement, the obligation is on the [s]tate to prove willful conduct on the part of the 5 probationer so as to satisfy th e applicable burden of proof.” In re Bruno R ., 6 2003-NMCA-057, ¶ 11, 133 N.M. 566, 66 P.3d 339; see State v. Martinez , 7 1989-NMCA-036, ¶ 8, 108 N.M. 604, 775 P.2d 1321 (explaining that probation 8 should not be revoked where the violation is not willful, in that it resulted from factors 9 beyond a probationer’s control). 10
{3} Here, Defendant apparently did not contest the State’s claim that he violated 11 probation conditions, including the duty to report. [DS 4] Instead, Defendant claimed 12 that he did not know that he was still on probation after the district court issued an 13 order on the first probation violation. [D S 4-5] In other words, Defendant is 14 challenging the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the willfulness of the 15 violations. The record indicates that De fendant’s initial probati on violation resulted 16 in an order that continued probation. [RP 53] Notwithstandi ng the express language 17 of the order, Defendant apparently argue d at the second probation hearing that he 18 thought that he was no longer on probation. [DS 4-5] However, in addition to the 193 order on the first probation violation, the district court reviewed the transcript of the 1 sentencing hearing on the first probation violation. [DS 5] The transcript indicated that 2 the judge at that hearing had told Defendant that his probation would be reinstated 3 after a period of incarceration. Given this evidence, we conclude that there was 4 sufficient evidence to show that Defendant willfully violated probation as alleged in 5 the second motion to revoke probation. Cf. State v. Sutphin , 1988-NMSC-031, ¶ 21, 6 107 N.M. 126, 753 P.2d 1314 (noting that the factfinder is free to reject a defendant’s 7 version of events). 8
{4} For the reasons set forth above, we affirm. 9
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

_____________________________ 11 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 12 WE CONCUR: 13

__________________________________ 14 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 15

__________________________________ 16 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 17