Title: State. v. Leach

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State. v. Leach (2002-227); 175 Vt. 620; 833 A.2d 1260

2003 VT 66

[Filed 29-Aug-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 66

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-227

                              APRIL TERM, 2003

  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 1, Windsor Circuit
  Tyler Leach	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 1591-10-00 Wrcr

                                                Trial Judge: Paul F. Hudson

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

       ¶  1.  Defendant Tyler Leach appeals from the trial court's order
  denying his motion to reconsider his motion to dismiss.  Defendant argues
  that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him because his probation had
  expired.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  In September 2000, defendant led police on a lengthy car
  chase that resulted in substantial damage to the pursuing officer's
  vehicle.  The parties agreed that defendant would serve a six-month
  deferred sentence, with the condition that defendant's sentence could be
  extended to allow him time to pay restitution, if restitution was ordered. 
  Defense counsel explained that this condition was designed to prevent
  defendant from having his deferred sentence revoked if he could not afford
  to pay restitution.

       ¶  3.  On April 2, 2001, defendant pled guilty to one count of
  attempting to elude a police officer.  The court accepted the parties' plea
  agreement, and sentenced defendant to a six-month deferred sentence with
  administrative probation.  The deferred sentence agreement provided that
  defendant "shall pay restitution, if ordered by the court after hearing,
  and may extend duration of deferred sentence to reflect time needed to pay
  restitution if ordered to pay same."

       ¶  4.  On May 2, 2001, the court held a restitution hearing.  The
  State presented evidence that defendant caused over four thousand dollars
  of damage to the pursuing officer's vehicle.  Although defendant had been
  notified to appear, he did not do so, and the court continued the hearing
  until May 18, 2001.  On that date, defendant testified that he was
  unemployed, financially insolvent, and a single parent to three young
  children.  He stated that he was trying to start his own business, and did
  not know how much income it would generate in the future.  In light of
  this, the court stated that it would "simply leave an order in the file
  that [we'll] check back with you in six months or so, see how things are
  going and take it from there." 
   
       ¶  5.  On July 12, 2001, the court concluded in a written opinion
  that the State had suffered $4370.23 in damages.  The court found that
  defendant "will have the ability to pay restitution; but at present he does
  not have an ability to pay."  Because the court could not establish a
  present method of payment, it ordered the case set for further proceedings
  in six months.  Defendant did not appeal this order.

       ¶  6.  In September 2001, the court notified defendant that it had
  set a second restitution hearing for February 12, 2002.  On January 18,
  2002, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked
  jurisdiction over him.  Defendant asserted that his probationary term had
  expired because the court had not ordered him to pay restitution within his
  original probation term, nor had any probation violation proceedings been
  initiated against him.  After a hearing, the court denied defendant's
  motion.  In a written opinion, the court explained that its July 2001 order
  had established defendant's restitution obligation and extended defendant's
  deferred sentence.  The court found that defendant had agreed to this
  extension by failing to object to the court's order.  Defendant filed a
  motion to reconsider, which the court denied after a hearing.  This appeal
  followed. 

       ¶  7.  On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court should
  have dismissed the proceedings against him for lack of jurisdiction.  He
  argues that, because he agreed to a fixed probation term, the court could
  not extend his probation unless revocation or modification proceedings had
  been initiated against him during his original probation term.  He asserts
  that his probation was not extended because the court failed to issue a
  restitution order within his original probation term.  Even assuming that
  the court's July 2001 order extended his deferred sentence, defendant
  argues, the court failed to hold a second hearing within the six-month
  period specified in its order.  Defendant relies on State v. White, 150 Vt.
  132,