Court Opinion

ID: 9393779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 14:04:50.698748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:55.434664
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

                       COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 APPEALS COURT

                                                  20-P-15

                                  COMMONWEALTH

                                       vs.

                            ZAHIR Z.,1 a juvenile.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

        The juvenile appeals from a judge's order revoking his

 probation, arguing that the original imposition of drug

 screening as a condition of probation was improper and that

 there was insufficient evidence that he committed the three

 violations found.      We affirm.

        Background.    In November 2018, in connection with two

 complaints, the juvenile pleaded delinquent to charges of

 disturbing the peace, minor in possession of a BB gun, and

 assault and battery.       The judge sentenced the juvenile to one

 year of probation on both dockets, and imposed the following

 special conditions of probation:          abstain from alcohol, drugs,

 and marijuana and submit to random testing; comply with his

 1   A pseudonym.
mental health evaluation and treatment plan as prescribed; have

no avoidable contact with and stay away from the victim and

codefendant from the assault and battery case; have no gang

involvement; possess no weapons; take medication as prescribed;

work with providers; and engage in a local youth group.

    Within weeks of starting probation, the juvenile missed two

appointments with his probation officer on December 13, 2018,

and December 27, 2018.   He subsequently made up those

appointments, attending one meeting with his mother and the

other with his social worker.     He also failed a drug test for

marijuana on December 17, 2018.        On January 18, 2019, probation

issued a probation violation notice for:        failing to appear as

required to his probation officer for the two missed meetings;

the failed drug screen; and "gang involvement/signs" on November

28, 2018, and December 14, 2018.       For the next three weeks, the

juvenile made no contact with his probation officer.        On

February 8, 2019, probation issued a second notice of probation

violation, which outlined the same violations as the first, as

well as his whereabouts being unknown since January 18, 2019.

    After a hearing on February 26, 2019, the judge found the

juvenile in violation based on the missed probation visits, the

juvenile's whereabouts being unknown, and the positive drug

screen for marijuana.    Although the judge found the juvenile in

violation of probation for a positive marijuana urine test, she

                                   2
stated that the "bigger concerns and issues are the fact that

[the juvenile] was not meeting with his [p]robation [o]fficer,

and that he went whereabouts unknown for three weeks."    As for

the failed drug test, the judge stated, "So, let me just make

clear, I'm going to take the [failed drug] test, but that is not

what I'm basing the violation on" and "to me this is collateral

information."   The judge revoked the juvenile's probation and

sentenced him to the custody of the Department of Youth Services

(DYS) to age eighteen.

    Discussion.    "A probation revocation hearing involves a

two-stage process, in which a judge first determines whether a

probationer violated a condition of probation and then, if so,

decides whether the violation warrants revocation."

Commonwealth v. Joyner, 467 Mass. 176, 189-190 (2014).    "The

standard of proof in a probation revocation proceeding is the

civil standard of preponderance of the evidence."   Commonwealth

v. Hill, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 147, 154 (2001).   We review to

determine "whether the record discloses sufficient reliable

evidence to warrant the findings by the judge that [the

probationer] had violated the specified conditions of his

probation."   Commonwealth v. Morse, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 582, 594

(2000).

    "If the judge determines that the defendant is in

violation, . . . [h]ow best to deal with the probationer is

                                 3
within the judge's discretion."       Commonwealth v. Durling, 407

Mass. 108, 111 (1990).   "[A] judge's discretionary decision

constitutes an abuse of discretion where we conclude the judge

made a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors relevant

to the decision . . . such that the decision falls outside the

range of reasonable alternatives."       L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470

Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014) (quotation omitted).

    1.   Missed probation meetings.       It is uncontested that less

than a month after being placed on probation, the juvenile

missed two scheduled meetings with his probation officer with no

contemporaneous communications explaining his absence.      On

appeal, the juvenile argues that the judge erred because the

violation was not willful.   He claims that because he made up

the meetings promptly, he therefore acted in good faith, and did

not violate the condition of his probation.      We disagree.

    "A defendant can be found in violation of a probationary

condition only where the violation was [willful]."      Commonwealth

v. Henry, 475 Mass. 117, 121 (2016).       When confronted with a

probation violation, a juvenile is entitled to show "that there

was a justifiable excuse for any violation or that revocation is

not the appropriate disposition."      Black v. Romano, 471 U.S.

606, 612 (1985).   Cf. Commonwealth v. Canadyan, 458 Mass. 574,

578-579 (2010) (holding that defendant did not commit willful

violation of probation for failing to wear operable global

                                  4
positioning system [GPS] monitoring device because evidence

conclusively established that defendant was homeless and that

homeless shelter he was staying at could not accommodate

technological requirements of GPS equipment).

    It was uncontested that the juvenile was aware of his

obligations to meet with the probation officer and that he

missed the appointments.     The probation officer testified that

the juvenile made "no communication of why he missed [them]."

Nor did he make any argument that it would have been impossible

for him to meet the condition.     There was sufficient evidence to

hold that the juvenile violated the condition of his probation.

See Commonwealth v. Al Saud, 459 Mass. 221, 231 (2011)

(affirming revocation of probation where "nothing in the record

suggests that the defendant made any effort to contact the

department and explain his situation, even by telephone, . . .

[n]or did he ask his counsel to contact the department on his

behalf").

    2.      Whereabouts unknown.   The juvenile argues that there

was insufficient evidence to support a finding that his

whereabouts were unknown.     He claims that there were no specific

details about the probation officer's attempts to contact the

juvenile or an explanation as to what specific condition of the

probation that he violated.     We disagree.

                                   5
       The juvenile was served a violation notice and notice of

probation detention hearing instructing him to appear on January

18, 2019.    Yet, the juvenile made no contact with probation or

the court until he was picked up on February 8, 2019.             The

juvenile's counsel conceded that the juvenile "abscond[ed] for

three weeks."    Ample evidence supported the judge's finding that

the juvenile's whereabouts were unknown.

       3.   Failed drug screening.       In addition to the two

probation violations, discussed supra, that we determine were

established and justified revoking the juvenile's probation, the

judge also noted a third:     the defendant's failed drug test.         On

appeal, the juvenile argues that the drug test should not have

been imposed as a condition of probation, and that the drug

screening test was unreliable.       We need not reach this issue

because the judge made clear that she did not base her violation

finding on the failed drug screen, that she considered such

"collateral information" to be outside "what [she was] focused

on."    See Commonwealth v. Rainey, 491 Mass. 632, 648-649 (2023)

("[s]eeing no reason to doubt the judge's statement that the GPS

violations did not 'drive the result,'" there was no reason to

vacate revocation order on this ground).          Furthermore, the

juvenile is now over the age of eighteen and has finished

serving his sentence.     Even if we were to agree with the

defendant's arguments as to the drug screening, "no purpose

                                     6
could be served by remanding the matter for resentencing,

because no effective relief could be granted."     Commonwealth v.

Padua, 479 Mass. 1004, 1005 (2018).

                                      Order revoking probation
                                        affirmed.

                                      By the Court (Milkey, Henry &
                                        Shin, JJ.2),

                                      Clerk

Entered:    May 11, 2023.

2   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                  7