Title: State v. Priest

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Priest (98-490); 170 Vt. 576; 743 A.2d 1072

[Opinion Filed 06-Oct-1999]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 07-Jan-2000]]

           
                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-490

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1999

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
	                               }
	                               }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
	                               }	Unit No. 2, Bennington Circuit
Michael Priest	                       }
	                               }	DOCKET NO. 295-4-94Bncr

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

       Defendant appeals the trial court's sentence imposed after defendant
  admitted violating  conditions of his probation, arguing that the court
  abused its discretion when it failed to alter the  original sentence.  We
  affirm.

       In September 1994, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual
  assault on a minor, see  13 V.S.A. § 3252(3), and was sentenced to a term
  of imprisonment of zero-to-eight years, all  suspended, with several
  conditions of probation.  In July 1998, defendant's parole officer filed a 
  complaint alleging that defendant had violated three conditions of
  probation, including failing to  participate in an approved treatment
  program for sex offenders.  Defendant admitted to the  violations and,
  following sentencing hearings in August and October 1998, the court ordered
  the  execution of the zero-to-eight year sentence originally imposed in
  September 1994.

       On appeal, defendant claims that the court abused its discretion when
  it failed to alter the  original sentence and instead imposed the
  zero-to-eight year sentence.  Discretionary rulings are not  subject to
  revision here unless it clearly and affirmatively appears that such
  discretion has been  abused or withheld.  See State v. Picknell, 142 Vt.
  215, 230,