'verified facts' so that 'the exercise of discretion will be informed by an
accurate knowledge of the [probationer's] behavior." Anaya v. State, 96
Nev. 119, 122, 606 P.2d 156, 157 (1980) (alteration in original) (quoting
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 484 (1972)).
Appellant argues that insufficient evidence supports
revocation of his probation. The district court primarily based its decision
on evidence of appellant's unauthorized Internet use and alcohol
consumption. Evidence was introduced at the hearing showing that
appellant had posted messages on his Facebook account. His probation
officer testified that he repeatedly advised appellant against accessing the
Internet. Although appellant argues that he terminated his access to his
Facebook account via text messaging—text messaging was permissible
under his probation conditions—the evidence shows that appellant
accessed his Facebook account multiple times, posting messages on that
account by accessing the Internet.' As to the alcohol consumption
allegation, a therapist at a treatment center where appellant received
services testified that she learned from appellant's probation officer that
appellant had consumed alcohol, which appellant denied. Appellant's
probation officer did not specifically comment on the alcohol allegation
during the hearing other than to state that alcohol use was a "trigger of
recidivism."
Our review shows that the district court's decision is
supported by the record. Although the evidence of appellant's alcohol
'Appellant's probation officer testified at the revocation hearing that
appellant was granted limited access to the Internet to complete school
assignments on the school campus.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
fEa
consumption was slight, substantial evidence supported the allegation of
unauthorized Internet use. We conclude that the evidence shows that
appellant's conduct was not as good as required by the conditions of
probation, and therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion by
revoking appellant's probation. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Douglas Saitta
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge
Robert M. Draskovich, Chtd.
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 7