State of North Dakota v. Christopher Branden Enriquez

Minot, North Dakota revocation of probation criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant.

[¶2] Enriquez pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver or manufacture, a class B felony. Enriquez's sentence included probation. One condition of Enriquez's probation was he "not possess a firearm, destructive device or other dangerous weapon."



[¶3] While Enriquez was on probation, federal officers from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) executed a federal search warrant on his home. During the search, the federal officers purportedly found a handgun, fentanyl pills, and methamphetamine. A DEA agent texted Enriquez's probation officer a picture "that had the handgun and the narcotics[.]"



[¶4] The State filed a petition to revoke Enriquez's probation on three grounds: possession of a handgun; possession of fentanyl; and possession of methamphetamine. At the probation revocation hearing, the State presented testimony from Enriquez's probation officer; no other witnesses testified. Addressing the first allegation, the probation officer testified he received a picture of the handgun:



Q All right. Okay. And were you provided documentation from the Department of Justice with-from DEA with regards to this search? A So when the search was happening, I was initially sent a picture that had the handgun and the narcotics and-



. . . [Objection overruled] . . .



Q Okay. You were saying?



A I was sent a text message of a picture with the evidence that was found during the search and I was sent a report from Special Agent Uler (ph.) with the DEA.



The probation officer further testified the address of the search was the address on file for Enriquez. On cross-examination, the probation officer testified he did not know where in the house the federal officers found the handgun. He further testified he did not know whether the handgun was functional.



[¶5] The State did not introduce the firearm or the picture of the firearm. The probation officer testified he received a report from a DEA agent; he did not testify about the substance of the report and the State did not introduce the report.



[¶6] At the end of the hearing, the district court held the State did not prove Enriquez possessed fentanyl or methamphetamine. The court held the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence Enriquez possessed a handgun, which was a firearm or dangerous weapon. The court revoked Enriquez's probation and resentenced him. See State v. Hager, 2010 ND 217, ¶ 8, 790 N.W.2d 745 ("[T]he State need show only a single violation to sustain revocation of probation[.]" (quoting State v. Jacobsen, 2008 ND 52, ¶ 15, 746 N.W.2d 405)).

Reversed