PULSIFER v. STATE (2021)

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.