Title: State v. Powers

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Powers (2001-094); 173 Vt. 550; 789 A.2d 962

[Filed 26-Dec-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-094

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2001

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 3, Orleans Circuit
Jason Powers	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 435-7-97 Oscr

                                                Trial Judge: Howard E. 
                                                             VanBenthuysen  

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       The Department of Corrections appeals the judgment of the district
  court denying its motion to  amend the court's probation order with respect
  to defendant, Jason Powers.  The Department  contends that the trial court
  erroneously concluded that, notwithstanding 28 V.S.A. § 102(b)(12) 
  (granting the Commissioner of Corrections the power to contract with
  private collection agencies for  the collections of fines, penalties and
  restitution imposed under Title 13), it may order defendant in  this case
  to pay a fine imposed as a condition of probation directly to his probation
  officer in cash.   The Department argues that the court's conclusion is at
  odds with the doctrine of separation of  powers.  We affirm.

       Defendant was convicted in January 1998 of driving with a suspended
  license in violation of  23 V.S.A. § 674.  He was sentenced to zero-to-two
  years, with all but two days suspended, and  placed on probation.  As part
  of his conditions of probation, defendant was required to pay a fine of 
  $1500.  In November 2000, the State charged him with violating this
  condition of probation.  A  hearing was scheduled for December 8, 2000. 
  The day of the hearing, the State and defendant  reached an agreement to
  dismiss the violation-of-probation complaint and reduce defendant's fine to 
  five hundred dollars.  The trial court entered a modified probation order
  reducing the fine to five  hundred dollars and providing specifically that
  defendant was to pay this amount directly to his  probation officer in cash
  in monthly installments of no less than fifty dollars. 

       On December 18, 2000, the Department of Corrections filed a motion to
  amend the order,  seeking to strike the portion specifying that defendant's
  payments be made directly to his probation  officer in cash and to replace
  it with a provision ordering payment "to the collection agency to which 
  [d]efendant is directed by his probation officer."  The Department argued
  that this was required to  conform with the provisions of 28 V.S.A. §
  102(b)(12), as well as Policy 208 and Directive 208.1  promulgated by the
  Department under § 102(b)(12).  The trial court denied the motion.  The 
  Department now appeals to this Court.

       The Department argues that the trial court's refusal to amend the
  order violates the separation  of powers doctrine "by intruding upon the
  province of the legislative and executive branches."  We 

 

  need not reach such weighty constitutional issues to decide this case, for
  we discern no conflict  between § 102(b)(12) and a trial court's
  traditional responsibility to impose individual conditions of  probation
  for the purpose of supervision of offenders released on probation.  See 28
  V.S.A. § 205(a)  (allowing trial court to suspend all or part of a sentence
  and place defendant on probation with  conditions); id. at § 252(a) ("The
  conditions of probation shall be such as the court in its discretion  deems
  reasonably necessary to ensure that the offender will lead a law-abiding
  life or to assist him to  do so.") (emphasis added); State v. Moses, 159
  Vt. 294, 301, 618 A.2d 478, 482 (1992) ("the  Legislature placed the power
  to impose probation conditions on the court"); State v. Bubar, 146 Vt. 
  398, 405,