Howard, Jr. (Larry) v. State ( 2014 )

 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