CASTRO v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Julien Castro appeals from a district court's order for revocation of probation and amended judgment of conviction. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Douglas Smith, Judge.

Castro claims the district court abused its discretion by revoking his probation because it failed to consider his particular circumstances in reaching its revocation decision. To this end, he argues that “all of [his] shortcomings on probation, when viewed in light of his being homeless and the victim of a crime, can be understood as imperfect but earnest efforts at fulfilling the conditions of probation.”

The decision to revoke probation is within the broad discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse. Lewis v. State, 90 Nev. 436, 438, 529 P.2d 796, 797 (1974). Evidence supporting a decision to revoke probation must be merely sufficient to reasonably satisfy the district court that the conduct of the probationer was not as good as required by the conditions of probation. Id.

The district court heard testimony that Castro violated the conditions of his probation by failing to maintain contact with the Division of Parole and Probation; changing his residence without permission; violating his curfew; and failing to complete his community service, counseling, and adult education requirements. Based on this testimony, we conclude the district court could reasonably find that Castro's conduct was not as good as required by the conditions of his probation, and therefore, it did not abuse its discretion by revoking his probation. Accordingly, we

ORDER the district court's order for revocation of probation and amended judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.