Minimal probation revocation notice

gives adequate notice. — Where notice to defendant of revocation of probation, as con- tained in a prosecuting attorney’s motion, is minimal, but the defendant had been informed at his original sentencing in no uncertain terms that violations such as those enumerated in the motion would be grounds for revocation and the offenses are clearly described in the motion and it is clear from the motion that the offenses occurred in a certain county between defen- dant’s original sentencing and the date of the motion, the defendant has adequate notice of the charge against him, particularly in view of his failure to move for additional information or to request a continuance. Murphy v. State, 592 P.2d 1159, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 395 (Wyo. 1979). Split sentence violations determined under criminal rules. — If a defendant is given a “split sentence” (incarceration followed by probation) pursuant to § 7-13-107, proba- tion violations will likewise be determined un- der the sentencing court’s continued jurisdic- tion during the period of probation pursuant to the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure. Wlodarczyk v. State, 836 P.2d 279, 1992 Wyo. LEXIS 80 (Wyo. 1992), overruled in part, Daugherty v. State, 2002 WY 52, 44 P.3d 28, 2002 Wyo. LEXIS 53 (Wyo. 2002). Violation of probation found. — The vio- lation of a condition of probation was conclu- sively established by the probationer’s admis- sion that he failed to complete the Community Alternatives of Casper program. Mapp v. State, 929 P.2d 1222, 1996 Wyo. LEXIS 180 (Wyo. 1996). District court properly found that defendant violated his probation willingly, where defen- dant’s mental health diagnosis was called into doubt by his attempts to manipulate the diag- nosis, which included defendant’s claims of hearing voices and admissions that he thought being diagnosed with schizophrenia would help in getting him out of jail, and the mental illness with which defendant was diagnosed, psy- chopathy, would not have prevented him from understanding the rules of his treatment pro- gram or the nature and consequences of his actions while in the treatment program. Edrington v. State, 2008 WY 70, 185 P.3d 1264, 2008 Wyo. LEXIS 72 (Wyo. 2008). Trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that two separate conditions of probation had been violated, as defendant failed to provide documentation to his proba-