Here, it is unclear from the record what violation or violations the district court concluded that Duncan committed. Testimony at the hearing indicated that Duncan failed to pay his supervision fees and obtain employment, and was involved in a robbery. While the primary focus of the hearing was on Duncan's alleged involvement in the robbery and the court's disbelief of his denial of any involvement, the court also repeatedly mentioned Duncan's lack of employment. The district court did not issue written findings, made only a conclusory statement that it was going to revoke Duncan's probation, and never clarified what conduct the revocation was based upon. Under these circumstances, we conclude the district court's oral statements are insufficient to clearly identify the violation or violations relied upon to revoke Duncan's probation, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.' ,J.

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Law Offices of William H. Brown Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk 3-In light of our disposition, we need not reach Duncan's other assertions of error.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A

i-i-immEmm.-7.174mtvin----Awmayamgcr: El