Opinion ID: 2514668
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: [¶ 2] Reece presents two issues for review: 1. WERE [REECE]'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS VIOLATED BY THE NON-SPECIFICITY OF THE TERMS OF HIS PROBATION AND A FAILURE TO ADVISE HIM OF THE CONDUCT THAT WAS REQUIRED AND PROHIBITED? 2. DID THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO MAKE SPECIFIC FINDINGS REQUIRED BY LAW AMOUNT TO ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ACTION AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION? The State rephrases the issues as follows: 1. THE TERMS OF [REECE]'S PROBATION WERE SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND HE WAS PROPERLY ADVISED OF THE TERMS OF HIS PROBATION; THEREFORE, HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE NOT VIOLATED. 2. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DID NOT MAKE EXPRESS FINDINGS OF FACT  BEYOND ACCEPTING [REECE]'S OWN ADMISSION THAT HE VIOLATED A TERM OF HIS PROBATION  TO SUPPORT ITS FINDING THAT A PROBATION VIOLATION OCCURRED.