Opinion ID: 2639038
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Evidence of Willful Violation

Text: [¶16] At the hearing, Sami's probation officer testified that he had learned from police that Sami was under investigation for sexual assault on a minor. That investigation did not result in any charges; however, a motion for a protective order was filed that resulted in a finding that Sami had committed an act of domestic abuse against the minor. After the protective order was entered against him, Sami contacted an attorney who advised that the proceedings were civil in nature and should not have any effect upon Sami's Section 301 probation status. Sami contended that he believed that he only had to report criminal proceedings to his probation officer and, based upon the legal advice that the protection order proceedings were civil, he did not feel he would violate the terms of his probation by not reporting the proceedings to his probation officer. At his next meeting with his probation officer, Sami was required to complete a written questionnaire that asked whether Sami had been in contact with law enforcement since his last report. Sami marked the box no. Sami's probation officer questioned Sami about the incident, and Sami then reported it to his probation officer. Nevertheless, the probation officer filed an affidavit which led to the State's filing of a petition to revoke probation. [¶17] The district court determined that it did not have to determine whether civil or criminal proceedings had occurred or whether Sami had committed an act of physical abuse against the minor. The court ruled: But the simple issue before this Court is, did Mr. Sami obey the simple rules of the probation and parole agreement? And about  out of those 12 rules, probably 8 of them could be boiled down to, you have to be truthful and honest with your probation officer. The Court found it a little incredible  more than a little incredible  that you, Mr. Sami, would not mention this contact, and that you didn't understand to check the box. You have been checking those boxes for a year and a half . . . . And yet, you immediately took those papers and went running to see an attorney because you thought there might be some  there might be some problem. The district court determined that Sami had intentionally failed to reveal contact with law enforcement and revoked his probation. [¶18] Although the record adequately supports the district court's finding that Sami intentionally marked the box no, Sami contends that the violation was not willful and was the result of communication problems he experienced because he does not speak English very well. The district court determined that Sami's testimony was not credible. Upon review, all that is necessary to uphold a district court's decision to revoke probation is evidence that it made a conscientious judgment, after hearing the facts, that a condition of probation had been violated. Mapp v. State, 929 P.2d 1222, 1225 (Wyo. 1996). The record shows the district court properly concluded Sami's violation of his probation agreement was willful and we find no abuse of discretion. The order revoking probation is affirmed.