HICKMAN v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Daniel Hickman appeals from an order for revocation of probation and amended judgment of conviction filed on December 17, 2019. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Carolyn Ellsworth, Judge.

Hickman contends the district court abused its discretion by relying on insufficient evidence when revoking his 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 merely be 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 and viewed evidence that Hickman violated the conditions of his probation by possessing sexually explicit images and failing to complete the required professional counseling. Based upon the record, we conclude the district court could reasonably find that Hickman'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 order for revocation of probation and amended judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   Hickman also argues the district court erred by relying on hearsay evidence when making its ruling. However, Hickman failed to properly preserve this issue for our review, and we decline to consider it. See Jeremias v. State, 134 Nev. 46, 50, 412 P.3d 43, 48 (2018).