Case Title: State v. Woolbert

Citation: 2007 VT 26

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Woolbert (2005-339)

2007 VT 26

[Filed 02-Apr-2007]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2007 VT 26

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-339

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2006


  State of Vermont                    }          APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
       v.                             }          District Court of Vermont,
                                      }          Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit
  Larry Woolbert                      }
                                      }          DOCKET NO. 955-7-02 Wmcr

                                                 Trial Judge: John P. Wesley

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Defendant appeals an order of the trial court that he engaged
  in "violent or threatening behavior" contrary to his conditions of
  probation.  Additionally, defendant argues that the trial court did not
  have the authority to modify both the "to serve" portion of defendant's
  sentence and the conditions of his probation.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  In 2004, defendant pleaded guilty to sexual assault on a
  minor and was sentenced to serve eight to twelve years with all but
  fourteen months of the sentence suspended.  As part of his sentence,
  defendant was placed on probation, which applied while he was incarcerated. 
  In March 2005, the State filed a probation violation complaint, alleging
  that defendant had engaged in "[v]iolent [or] threatening behavior"
  contrary to his probationary terms. 

       ¶  3.  Following a hearing, the district court found that defendant
  had violated a condition of probation prohibiting "violent or threatening
  behavior."  The court revoked defendant's probation and increased
  defendant's time to serve to forty-four months.  The court reimposed
  probation and added two additional conditions: that defendant successfully
  complete sex-offender treatment while incarcerated and that he not incur
  any major disciplinary reports (DRs).  

       ¶  4.  At the hearing, the State presented the following evidence of
  a February 2005 incident from which two DRs arose: testimony of a witness
  to the incident, testimony of the hearing officer for the incident, and a
  videotape of the incident.  Of the two DRs defendant received, one was for
  assault.  The State's probation violation complaint for "violent or
  threatening behavior" arose from the report for assault. (FN1) 
   
       ¶  5.  The living unit supervisor, Lynn Roberto, described the
  February 2005 incident as follows.  Defendant and three other inmates
  refused to turn in their bed sheets for laundering.  After being warned
  that they would be disciplined, the three other inmates complied. 
  Defendant, however, continued to refuse, and barricaded himself in his cell
  with his mattress and sheets piled up against the door.  This conduct
  resulted in a verbal confrontation with two guards during which defendant
  threw his sheets at the officers.  Due to his refusal to cooperate, the
  officers decided to transfer him to another unit.  Defendant thereafter
  refused to leave his cell.  He was profane, disruptive, and physically
  resistant throughout this process (referred to as a "cell extraction"), and
  had to be restrained.  Supervisor Roberto testified that defendant "was
  yelling, he was screaming, [and] he was trying to kick" during the
  extraction.  For this reason, two additional officers were called in for
  back-up; ultimately it took four officers to restrain defendant using a 
  "restraint chair."

       ¶  6.  The State next called Supervisor Mark Boutanis, who served as
  the hearing officer for the February 2005 incident.  Supervisor Boutanis
  testified that during the extraction, defendant kicked and injured another
  supervisor.  

       ¶  7.  In addition to this testimony, the district court viewed a
  videotape of the entire cell extraction.  The tape depicts an altercation
  spanning some seven to ten minutes in which defendant engages in numerous
  outbursts of physical resistance, interrupted by quiet periods in which he
  is held in physical check while additional guards are called.  Based on all
  the evidence, the district court found that defendant had been "assaultive
  and violent" in the course of being unreasonably reactive and resistant
  when asked to turn over his bed sheets.  Noting that defendant had, among
  other things, kicked an officer, the court concluded that the State had met
  its burden.  On appeal, defendant argues that while his conduct was
  noncompliant, it was not "violent or threatening" such that he violated his
  probation.  

       ¶  8.  The district court's conclusion that defendant violated his
  probation presents a mixed question of law and fact.  State v. Austin, 165
  Vt. 389, 398,