State v. Phillip, 2016 UT App 245 (Dec. 22, 2016)

The defendant argued that the district court erred in revoking probation, in part because Adult Probation & Parole was not supervising him at the time of the violation.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (a) inaction of the agency charged with supervision did not terminate probation, because the authority to terminate probation rests with the judiciary, and (b) the lower court did not err in finding the violation was willful, because the defendant could not have reasonably believed that he was no longer on probation under the facts of the case.