Title: State v. Hammond

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Hammond (2000-401); 172 Vt. 601; 779 A.2d 73

[Filed 01-Aug-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-401

                               JUNE TERM, 2001

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
                                       }
Sean Hammond	                       }	DOCKET NO. 100-1-98 Cncr

                                                Trial Judge: Brian L. Burgess 

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

       Defendant appeals from a decision of the district court finding him in
  violation of his conditions of  probation.  He argues on appeal that he was
  not given sufficient notice of the condition he was found to  have violated
  and that the record does not support a finding that he violated a condition
  voluntarily.  We  reverse.

       Defendant was charged with sexual assault in January 1998.  He pled
  guilty and was sentenced to  eight years in prison, with all but three
  years suspended.  Conditions of defendant's probation included a 
  requirement that he successfully complete the Windsor in-house sex offender
  counseling program and a  requirement that he successfully complete any
  other counseling directed by his probation officer.   Defendant was
  assessed for admission into the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual
  Aggressors  (VTPSA) at the Windsor Correctional Facility, but was found
  ineligible at that time based on the nature of  his crime.  The assessment
  team recommended that he participate in the Cognitive Self Change (CSC) 
  program at the facility instead, deeming it more appropriate for defendant. 
  Because of this change, the  assessment team thought it better that he be
  referred to VTPSA after his release - he would not have had  enough time to
  complete both the CSC program and VTPSA during his period of incarceration. 
  There is  no indication in the record, however, that this decision by the
  assessment team was ever communicated to  the defendant.  Nor does the
  record reflect that this alternative plan was approved by defendant's
  probation  officer.  Defendant did testify, however, that he was told that
  if he did not participate in the CSC program,  he would be "shipped to
  Virginia." 

       Several months after his acceptance into the CSC program, the program
  was moved to the Northern  State Correctional Facility in Newport, and
  defendant moved with the program.  He was eventually  terminated from the
  program five months before his scheduled release date, in part because he
  wrote  several inappropriate letters to women while in prison and in part
  because he was not participating  satisfactorily in the CSC program.  When
  informed of the thirty-day period in which he could redeem  himself and be
  readmitted to the program, defendant responded this would not be necessary
  as he was  scheduled to be released soon.  Shortly thereafter, defendant
  was assaulted by another prisoner and  hospitalized for a month.  He was
  cited by his probation officer for a violation of his conditions of 
  probation because of his failure to successfully complete the CSC program. 
  Prior to that, defendant had  never met with his probation officer, nor had
  any communications from her. 

 

       Following a hearing, the district court found that by failing to
  complete the CSC program, defendant  had violated his conditions of
  probation.  The court based its decision on its finding that defendant "was 
  placed on reasonable notice that he was going to be required to complete
  the [CSC program] before being  able to enter into [VTSPA]."  The court
  also found that defendant was told that he could complete VTSPA  after his
  release. (FN1)  The court revoked his probation and modified his sentence
  such that all but four  years were suspended, and defendant was ordered to
  complete the CSC program in-house and the sex  offender programming
  following his release. 

       Defendant argues that he was not given sufficient notice that
  completion of the CSC program was a  condition of probation.  Furthermore,
  he argues that because he was found ineligible for VTSPA,  satisfaction of
  that portion of his conditions of probation was placed outside of his
  control.  The trial court  concluded that because completion of CSC by
  defendant was a necessary precondition to his admission to  VTSPA, his
  removal from the program in effect was a failure to successfully
  participate in the VTSPA  program as required by defendant's sentencing
  order.

       Although a probation agreement is in no sense a "straight-jacket,"
  State v. Emery, 156 Vt. 364, 373,  593 A.2d 77, 82 (1991), and a defendant
  may be put on notice as to what may constitute a probation  violation
  merely by the instructions and directions of a probation officer, State v.
  Peck, 149 Vt. 617, 619-20,