PULSIFER v. STATE (2021)

Court of Appeals of Nevada.

Danielle Marcus PULSIFER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.

No. 81573-COA

Decided: April 28, 2021

State Public Defender/Carson City Attorney General/Carson City Carson City District Attorney

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Pulsifer argues the district court abused its discretion by revoking her probation without consideration of her need for mental health counseling and treatment. 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.

During a revocation hearing before the district court, Pulsifer admitted that she violated the terms of her probation by being prematurely discharged from her court-ordered inpatient treatment program, by having contact with the victim, and by being behind on her financial obligations. Based upon the record, we conclude the district court could reasonably find that Pulsifer's conduct was not as good as required by the conditions of her probation, and therefore, it did not abuse its discretion by revoking her probation. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network