State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)

Citation: State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)
Parent Document: State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2014-05-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2673207/state-v-hemingway/ ↗

Full Text

1,125 chars

¶ 15.        
First, a probationer may not challenge a probation condition in defense
of a violation complaint, but must do so earlier, before noncompliance is
alleged.  State v. Austin, 165 Vt. 389, 401-02, 685 A.2d 1076,
1084-85 (1996).  To do so, the probationer must have the exact language of
the condition, not the general description in a plea agreement or the
description given orally at sentencing.  In this case, the majority of the
special probation conditions contained in the plea agreement were worded
differently in the probation order.  The wording of § 252(c) shows
that the Legislature intended that defendant receive in writing the exact
wording of the conditions by its requirement that the certificate “explicitly
set[] forth the conditions upon which he or she is being released.”  (Emphasis
added.)  Without enforcement of this requirement, defendant will lose the
opportunity to challenge probation conditions because he or she will not know
that they were imposed.  Essentially, that is what occurred here, where
twenty probation conditions were imposed on defendant without notice.[1]

Other Sections in This Document (105)

Full Text