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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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-35532 4 JESSE CHAVEZ, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Christina P. Argyres, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Maris Veidemanis, Assistant Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 13 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VARGAS, Judge. 182 {1} Defendant Jesse Chavez appeals from th e district court’s order revoking his 1 probation and sentencing him to serve the re mainder of his probationary term in the 2 department of corrections. He claims that his right to confrontation under the due 3 process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violatedwhen the district court 4 permitted his probation officer totestify regarding the results of his urinalysis (UA) 5 drug test. In response, the State contends th at the district court did not err in revoking 6 Defendant’s probation because he failed to timely report to the probation office and 7 he tested positive for morphine. In his repl y brief, Defendant maintains that he was 8 denied his right to confrontation, and he a sserts that the district court’s written order 9 revoking his probation was based solely on the drug violation. After duly considering 10 the arguments, we affirm. 11 BACKGROUND 12
{2} Defendant pleaded no contest to one c ount of voluntary manslaughter with a 13 firearm enhancement, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-2-3 (1994), and a serious 14 violent offense, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 33-2-34 (2006, amended 2015), and 15 one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, pursuant to 16 NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-20 (2006). Defe ndant further admitted to having one 17 valid prior felony for habitual offender enhancement purposes, however, the State 18 waived the enhancement provided Defendant successfully completed his sentence, 193 which the parties agreed w ould not exceed nine years. The district court sentenced 1 Defendant to nine years inprison, suspended all but 364 days and ordered that 2 Defendant serve those 364 days in the Community Custody Program (CCP). The 3 district court further ordered that De fendant was “to be placed on [i]ntensive 4 [s]upervised [p]robation with GPS tracking for five (5) years following release from 5 custody, on condition that Defendant obey all rules, regulations and orders of the 6 [p]robation [a]uthorities, and obs erve all federal, state and city laws or ordinances.” 7 Defendant was also required to abide by sp ecial conditions of probation that he: (1) 8 obtain and maintain full-time employment, education, or both; and (2) abstain from 9 the use of alcohol and illegal drugs. 10
{3} On December 21, 2015, Defe ndant was released from CCP and ordered by his 11 supervisor to report to the probation office within twenty-four hours of his release. He 12 reported to the probation office at 8:00 a.m. on December 23, 2015—more than 13 twenty-four hours after his release from CCP—and provided a urine sample that tested 14 positive for morphine. Defendant’s probation officer prepared a probation violation 15 report. In his report, the probation officer identified the violation as a drug violation, 16 but detailed both Defendant’s failure to timely report to the probation office and the 17 drug violation as part of his evaluation of Defendant’s adjustment to supervision, 18 which he described as “poor.” The St ate filed a motion to revoke Defendant’s 194 probation, attached the probation violation report, and alle ged that Defendant 1 “violated probation as described in the attached [p]robation [v]iolation [r]eport.” 2
{4} Following a hearing on the State’s motion to revoke Defendant ’s probation, the 3 district court entered an order revoking De fendant’s probation, committing him to the 4 department of corrections, and unsatis factorily discharging him from probation. 5 Defendant now appeals. 6 DISCUSSION 7 I. Basis for District Court’s Finding of a Probation Violation 8
{5} The parties disagree as to the basis for the district court’s finding of a probation 9 violation. Defendant asserts that th e State moved to revoke his probation, 10 “incorporating the probation violation report and alleging that he failed a urinalysis 11 test [UA] and recommending that he be reinstated on probation and assigned directly 12 to the [i]ntensive [s]upervised [p]robation [u]nit with zero tolerance for future 13 violations.” Nevertheless, Defendant acknowledges that th e district court revoked his 14 probation because he did not report to th e probation office within twenty-four hours 15 of his release from CCP. However, he a sserts that pursuant to the written order 16 revoking his probation, “the court changed its basis for revoking [his] probation from 17 the failure to timely report to probation to drug use, incorporating the motion to 18 revoke and probation violation report by re ference.” The State, on the other hand, 195 contends that “[t]he only probation violati on identified by the district [court] judge at 1 the probation revocation hearing was thatDefendant ‘failed the [twenty-four]-hour 2 period’ for reporting to the [p]robation [o]ffice after his release from prison.” 3
{6} We have reviewed the transcript from the revocation hearing and note that, in 4 finding a probation violation, the district court judge stated as follows: 5 And what I am hearing for the first time today is that because he failed 6 the [twenty-four]-hour period, was a day later, that he didn’t really 7 violate. It was very clear from the outset of this case what [Defendant] 8 needed to do, and I’ve b een more than lenient with regards to giving him 9 a chance, a chance to cleanup his life and to help him out here. But I am 10 finding there’s a violation because number one, it wasn’t within the 11 [twenty-four] hours. And to think that you can just go the next day at 12 eight after he has been on CCP, to me it makes no sense. There was an 13 issue with regards to him supposed to be on GPS, he was supposed to be 14 on GPS, I’m not faulting him for that because it sounds like, from the 15 testimony that I heard, that they were waiting for him to be on ISP for 16 the GPS to be placed on, even though ev erything that we have here says, 17 immediately once he reports to probation he will be placed on a GPS 18 tracking for five years. So I am finding a violation. 19
{7} The district court entered its written order revoking Defendant’s probation the 20 next day, and pursuant to the form order, the district court found that Defendant 21 “violated paragraph 1 of the [m]otion to [r]evoke [p]robation.” Notably, the motion 22 to revoke does not contain numbered paragraphs. Instead, it contains a single 23 paragraph of text referring tothe alleged violation as fo llows: “The State alleges that 24 [D]efendant violated probation as describe d in the attached [p]robation [v]iolation 25 [r]eport.” 266 {8} Given that the probation vi olation report refers to both the failure to timely 1 report and the positive drug test, and at th e conclusion of the hearing on the motion 2 to revoke, the district court found that De fendant violated his probation by failing to 3 timely report to the probation office, we conclude that the district court revoked 4 Defendant’s probation, at a minimum, as a result of Defendant’s failure to timely 5 report to the probation office. To the extent that Defendant argues that the district 6 court changed its basis for revoking his probation from the failure to timely report to 7 the probation office to drug use, or that the oral ruling and written order were 8 inconsistent, we are not persuaded. 9
{9} “We review a district court’s revocation of a defendant’s probation for an abuse 10 of discretion.” State v. Leon , 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 36, 292 P.3d 493. To prove a 11 probation violation, the State is required to establish with a reasonable certainty that 12 such a violation occurred. State v. Green , 2015-NMCA-007, ¶ 22, 341 P.3d 10. 13 Applying these standards to the case beforeus, we conclude the State presented 14 sufficient evidence to provethat Defendant failed to timely report to the probation 15 office, in violation of the district court’s order in the underlying judgment that 16 Defendant was required to “obey all rules, regulations and orders of the [p]robation 17 [a]uthorities[.]” This violation alone was a sufficient basis for the district court to 18 revoke Defendant’s probation. See Leon , 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 37 (stating that 197 “although [the d]efendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each 1 of his probation violations, if there is sufficient evidence to support just one violation, 2 we will find the district c ourt’s order was proper”); see also Green , 2015-NMCA-007, 3 ¶ 21, n.3 (declining to reach the issue of whether sufficient evidence supported 4 revocation of the defendant ’s probation on the remaining alleged grounds where this 5 Court found sufficient evidence to support a violation on just one ground). 6 II. Defendant Did Not Preserve the Confrontation Issue 7
{10} We note that even if the district c ourt had revoked Defendant’s probation solely 8 on the drug-test violation, we would affirm. The only argument Defendant made 9 regarding that violation was not preserved below. 10
{11} Defendant claims that he “was denieddue process when the district court 11 ignored his right to confront and cross-ex amine the chemist who tested his urine and 12 determined the presence of morphine as opposed to oxycodone fo r which he had a 13 prescription.” See State v. Guthrie , 2011-NMSC-014, ¶ 12, 150 N.M. 84, 257 P.3d 14 904 (“The right protected in probation revo cations is not the sixth amendment right 15 to confrontation, guaranteed every accused ina criminal trial, but rather the more 16 generally worded right to due process of law secured by the fourteenth amendment.”). 17 “In order to preserve an error for appeal , it is essential that the ground or grounds of 18 the objection or motion be made with sufficient specificity to alert the mind of the trial 198 court to the claimed error or errors, and that a ruling thereon then be invoked.” State 1 v. Varela , 1999-NMSC-045, ¶ 25, 128 N.M. 454, 993 P.2d 1280 (internal quotation 2 marks and citation omitted); see also Rule 12-321(A) NMRA (“ To preserve an issue 3 for review, it must appear that a ruling or decision by the trial court was fairly 4 invoked.”). 5
{12} At the revocation hearing, Defendant erroneously argued that the rules of 6 evidence apply and based his objections to the State’s evidence on evidentiary 7 grounds. See Rule 11-1101(D)(3)(d) NMRA (providing that the rules of evidence, 8 except for those on privilege, do not apply to “granting or revoking probation or 9 supervised release”). Defendant claimed th at his probation officer’s testimony and the 10 drug test results were hearsay, that th e State failed to lay a foundation for this 11 evidence, and that the probation officer was not qualified to testify regarding the drug 12 results because he was not the chemist who performed the drug test . We conclude that 13 the evidentiary objections that Defendant raised at the hearing were not sufficiently 14 specific to alert the district court to the confrontation i ssue that Defendant now argues 15 on appeal. See State v. Lucero , 1986-NMCA-085, ¶¶ 12-17, 104 N.M. 587, 725 P.2d 16 266 (holding that denial of right to confrontation may not be raised for first time on 17 appeal, and hearsay objections were not suffici ently specific to alert the district court 18 to claimed constitutional error); State v. Mora , 1997-NMSC-060, ¶ 47 n.1, 124 N.M. 199 346, 950 P.2d 789 (holding that the defendant did not preserve his confrontation 1 argument because he failed to object on confrontation grounds or general 2 constitutional grounds), abrogated on other grounds by Kersey v. Hatch , 3 2010-NMSC-020, ¶ 17, 148 N.M. 381, 237 P.3d 683; cf. State v. Ross , 4 1996-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 24-25, 122 N.M. 15, 919 P.2d 1080 (holdi ng that confrontation 5 issue was preserved for appellate review where the defendant timely objected on 6 general constitutional grounds, in addition to evidentiary grounds, and distinguishing 7 Lucero by noting that the defendant in that case made only evidentiary objections to 8 hearsay evidence without suggesting that its admission would violate either the state 9 or federal constitutions), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tollardo , 2012- 10 NMSC-008, ¶ 37 n.6, 275 P.3d 110. Therefore, we conclude that this issue was not 11 properly preserved for appellate review. 12 CONCLUSION 13
{13} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. 14
{14} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

16 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 17 WE CONCUR: 18

1910 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 1

2 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge 3