Reece v. State

HILL, Justice.

[11] Dawson A. Reece challenges his probation revocation, stating that the terms of his probation failed to specify the required, and the prohibited, conduct, and that the district court did not make adequate findings to justify the revocation. On appeal, we affirm.

ISSUES

[T2] Reece presents two issues for review:

1. WERE [REECE]JS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS VIOLATED BY THE NON-SPECIFICITY OF THE TERMS OF HIS PROBATION AND A FAILURE TO ADVISE HIM OF THE CONDUCT THAT WAS REQUIRED AND PROHIBITED?

2. DID THE TRIAL COURTS FAILURE TO MAKE SPECIFIC FINDINGS REQUIRED BY LAW AMOUNT TO ARBITRARY…