Case Title: State v. Sanborn

Citation: 

Docket Number: 89-468

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-10-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 89-468


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 2, Franklin Circuit

David Sanborn                                October Term, 1990


Edward J. Cashman, J.

Howard E. VanBenthuysen, Franklin County State's Attorney, James A. Hughes,
  Diane C. Wheeler and Jo-Ann L. Gross, Deputy State's Attorneys, and
  Timothy J. Ryan, Law Clerk (On the Brief), St. Albans, for plaintiff-
  appellee

Walter M. Morris, Jr., Defender General, Montpelier, and Carol Marks,
  Public Defender, Newport, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ., and Peck, J. (Ret.),
          Specially Assigned


     DOOLEY, J.   Defendant appeals the revocation of his probation and the
imposition of his underlying sentence of four-to-eight years imprisonment.
We affirm.
     On August 25, 1986, defendant pled guilty to sexually assaulting a
juvenile.  The trial court suspended the prison sentence and placed
defendant on probation with special conditions.  The probation warrant
included standard condition two, which required defendant to "work, seek
employment or participate in vocational training to the full satisfaction of
your probation officer," and standard condition eight, which required
defendant to "participate fully in any program to which you may be referred
by the court or your probation officer."  The warrant also contained
special condition twenty-one, which stated:  "You shall attend weekly
counseling through Franklin Mental Health, with a waiver of confidentiality
between Mental Health and the Probation Department."
     From October 1986 to January 1987, defendant participated in a group
counseling program offered in St. Albans by Franklin-Grand Isle Mental
Health Service (FGIMH).  The FGIMH program was then disbanded due to a
shortage of staff.  Because no other local group was available, defendant
attended individual counseling through FGIMH from February 1987 through
July 1987, at which time counseling was terminated because of his failure
to pay for treatment.  In February 1988, defendant's probation officer
referred him to a group treatment program for sex offenders, conducted by
College Street Center for Psychotherapy (CSCP) in Burlington.  Defendant met
with the CSCP psychologist for two individual intake sessions.  The
psychologist concluded that despite an IQ in the low 70s, defendant
possessed sufficient intelligence to participate fully in the program.
Defendant attended approximately forty group sessions from March 1988 until
February 1989.  At that time, the group psychologist terminated defendant
from the program because of his lack of active participation and
unwillingness to meet treatment agreements.  In a letter to defendant's
probation officer, the psychologist expressed his belief that defendant was
not appropriate for outpatient treatment, and suggested that a better
alternative might be the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Offenders at
the Chittenden County Correctional Facility.  The psychologist outlined
four reasons for his decision:  (1) defendant's failure to interact
constructively with group members and co-therapists; (2) defendant's failure
to adequately prepare his assignments; (3) defendant's lack of employment
resulting in "boredom and too much free time," and thus, a risk of
reoffense; and (4) defendant's failure to meet agreements to pay for
treatment.
     On March 8, 1989, defendant's probation officer issued a probation
violation complaint, alleging that defendant had failed to comply with
standard conditions two and eight, and special condition twenty-one.  After
a hearing on the merits, the trial court made findings and concluded
defendant had violated condition eight -- to "participate fully in any
program to which you may be referred by the court or your probation
officer" -- and sentenced defendant to the underlying sentence of four to
eight years.
     Defendant first makes a series of arguments related to the requirement
that he pay for the treatment at CSCP.  Labeling this requirement as a
modification of his probation agreement, he challenges it as having been
imposed without a hearing and without adequate grounds.  In a related
argument, he attacks the trial court's findings for omitting any finding
that he was able to pay for treatment.  At least the first two parts of the
argument are based on settled law.  Both federal and Vermont law require a
hearing before a court may modify probation conditions to increase the
responsibilities of a probationer.  Gagnon v. Scarpelli,