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

1,791 chars

¶ 34.        
Several states with statutes requiring that a probationer receive a
written statement of probation conditions have similarly held that the purpose
of the statute is to provide defendants with notice of their probation terms,
and conditions can therefore be enforced as long as a defendant receives actual
notice.  For example, in People v. Zimmerman, 616 P.2d 997 (Colo.
App. 1980), the defendant argued that his conditions were unenforceable due to
failure to provide notice as required by a statute that stated the defendant
“shall be given a written statement explicitly setting forth the conditions on
which he is being released.”  Id. at 999.  The court concluded
that the purpose of the statute was to provide defendants with notice of their
probationary terms, and that where a defendant had actual notice, failure to
comply with the statute did not require reversal.  Id.; see also State
v. White, 363 A.2d 143, 151 (Conn. 1975) (concluding that statute stating
court “shall” deliver written copy of probation conditions to defendant was
directory because it did not provide penalty, and enforcing condition against
defendant who had actual notice of condition); Seals v. State, 700
N.E.2d 1189, 1190 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (rejecting defendant’s claim that
failure to provide him with written statement of conditions precludes court
from revoking probation, and holding that failure was harmless where defendant
was advised and acknowledged he understood condition); Whitlow v.
Commonwealth, No. 2002-CA-000683-MR, 2003 WL 21949135, at *3 (Ky. Ct. App.
Aug. 15, 2003) (holding statute was intended to provide defendant notice, and
failure to provide written statement did not preclude enforcement of conditions
where defendant had actual notice).

Other Sections in This Document (105)

Full Text