This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 35,551 4 RONNIE TRILLO, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Charles W. Brown, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 John J. Woykovsky, Assistant Attorney General 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 for Appellee 13 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 WECHSLER, Judge. 182 {1} Defendant appeals from the revocation of his probation. We previously issued 1 a calendar notice proposing to summarily re verse. The State has filed a memorandum 2 in opposition. After due consideration, we reverse. 3 {2} Because we previously set forth the relevant background information in the 4 notice of proposed summary disposition, wewill avoid lengthy reiteration here. Very 5 briefly, Defendant has argued that the district court erred in revoking his probation, 6 absent admissible evidence of a willful violation. [DS 7] In our notice of proposed 7 summary disposition we posited that the evidence upon which the district court 8 apparently relied ( i.e. , hearsay to the effect that Defendant was e xpelled from the 9 Good Shepherd program as a result of criminal misconduct) [MIO 6] was admitted in 10 violation of Defendant’s c onstitutional right to confrontation. [CN 2-6] In its 11 memorandum in opposition, the State concedes this point. [MIO 7-9] 12 {3} As we previously observed, Defendant tes tified that he did not willfully violate 13 the terms and conditions of his probation; rather, his participation in the Good 14 Shepherd program was terminated for reasons beyond his control. [DS 5] In the notice 15 of proposed summary disposition, we observed that the State did not appear to have 16 offered any admissible evidence to controvert Defendant’s mitigating assertion. [CN 17 6-7] See generally State v. Martinez , 1989-NMCA-036, ¶ 8, 108 N.M. 604, 775 P.2d 18 1321 (observing that probation revocation is in appropriate if a failure to comply was 193 not willful); In re Gabriel M. , 2002-NMCA-047, ¶ 24, 132 N.M. 124, 45 P.3d 64 1 (observing that while the “trial court is not required to believe a defendant’s 2 testimony,” when reviewing for substantial evidence, “that disbelief cannot substitute 3 for affirmative proof of the [s]tate’s case”). In its memorandum in opposition the 4 State contends that evidence of an indi rect nature was presented tending to rebut 5 Defendant’s assertion that the violation wa s not willful. [MIO 11] Two theories are 6 advanced. 7 {4} First, the State argues that insofar as Defendant admitted th at he was expelled 8 from the program because he had “confrontations” or “altercations” with others, the 9 district court could reasonably have inferred that Defendant “was an active participant, 10 and at least partially responsible” for his ensuing expulsion from the program. [MIO 11 11-12] However, the fact that Defendant wa s involved in one or more disputes with 12 other program participants, without further elucidation, tells us nothing about 13 causation or responsibility. Furthermore, wefind no indication that his involvement 14 in one or more confrontati ons with other program partic ipants, standing alone and in 15 the absence of the allegations of underlyi ng criminal misconduct, would have supplied 16 grounds for expulsion. Given the record’s silence on these matters, we are unable to 17 indulge the invited inferences. See generally State v. Slade , 2014-NMCA-088, ¶ 14, 18 331 P.3d 930 (“[A]n inference must be linked to a fact in evidence.”); Bowman v. Inc. 194 Cty. of Los Alamos , 1985-NMCA-040, ¶ 9, 102 N.M. 660, 699 P.2d 133 (“An 1 inference is more than a supposition or conjecture. It is a logical deduction from facts 2 which are proven, and guess wo rk is not a substitute ther efor.” (internal quotation 3 marks and citation omitted)). 4 {5} Second, the State asserts that Defendant’s failure to find an alternative program 5 “immediately” after his expulsion from the Good Shepherd program could be regarded 6 as evidence of willfulness. [MIO 12-14] Howe ver, the record before us contains no 7 evidence to suggest that admission to an alternative program was possible; and given 8 that Defendant actually obtained admission toan alternative program, [DS 6; MIO 6, 9 15] the invited inference of willful ness is not rationally supported. See generally id. 10 {6} Accordingly, for the reasons statedin the notice of proposed summary 11 disposition and above, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. 12 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

__________ ______________________ 14 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 15

WE CONCUR: 16

________________________________ 17 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 185 ________________________________ 1 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 2