or district court rules mandating such procedures and requirements. See generally Rule 6-703 (setting forth the requirements for an appeal from magistrate court to district court). Specif that a probation revocation hearing is not a trial, that a defendant is not entitled to all of the rights afforded during a criminal prosecution, and that the State’s burden of proof is different for a probation revocation proceeding. See State v. Phillips, 2006-NMCA-001, ¶ 17, 138 N.M. 730, 126 P.3d 546 (filed 2005) (stating that the trial court’s finding of a probation violation must be based on verified facts sufficient to establish the violation of probation to a “reasonable certainty” (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Martinez, 108 N.M. 604, 606, 775 P.2d 1321, 1323 (Ct.App.1989) (<HOLDING>). However, we fail to see how these differences
holding that the state must establish by the greater weight of the evidence that a defendant violated a term of his probation holding that the evidence that the defendant violated a probation condition was not competent and substantial because the state presented only hearsay evidence recognizing that the state must introduce proof which would incline a reasonable and impartial mind to the belief that a defendant has violated the terms of probation holding that a defendants aggressive conduct and shoving of another individual violated the terms of his probation holding that notwithstanding an agreement the state still must have reasonable grounds for investigating whether a parolee has violated the terms of parole or committed a crime