Howard, Jr. (Larry) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: April 10, 2014
• Docket: 63952
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

by an accurate knowledge of the probationer's behavior," Anaya v. State, 96 Nev. 119, 122, 606 P.2d 156, 157 (1980) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted), and, to this end, "a probationer has a due process right to confront and question witnesses giving adverse information at the formal revocation hearing," id. at 123, 606 P.2d at 158. However, a probationer "is [also] entitled to enter into agreements that waive or otherwise affect his or her fundamental rights," Krauss v. State, 116 Nev. 307, 310, 998 P.2d 163, 165 (2000), and those agreements will be enforced, see United States v. Molina, 596 F.3d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 2010) (stipulations voluntarily and knowingly entered into during criminal proceedings will be enforced). Here, the record reveals that appellant stipulated to the probation violations and the parties agreed that they would just present argument at the probation revocation hearing. The district court heard the parties' arguments, determined that appellant's conduct was not as good as required by the conditions of probation, and ordered appellant's probation revoked. We conclude from this record that appellant waived his due process rights and the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking probation. See Lewis v. State, 90 Nev. 436, 438, 529 P.2d 796, 797 (1974) (reviewing a district court's decision to revoke probation for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A •Atto