Commonwealth v. MacDonald

Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that a probationer is bound by the conditions imposed by the sentencing judge, not by conflicting conditions written on a probation form by a probation officer. A docket entry requiring the defendant to “stay away” from the victim was not equivalent to a “no contact” order, and the probation form was not a contract. The court vacated the order denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss and remanded for findings regarding the conditions actually imposed by the sentencing judge.

Holdings

1. A defendant violates probation only by disobeying conditions imposed by the sentencing judge; where the probation form and docket differ, the conditions written by the probation officer do not independently establish the operative probation conditions.
2. The probation form is not a contract, and the conditions signed by the defendant do not control over the conditions imposed by the sentencing judge.
3. Remand was necessary because the second probation surrender judge made no findings identifying the conditions imposed by the sentencing judge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a no-contact condition written on a probation officer's form, but not imposed or recorded by the sentencing judge, could support a probation-violation finding.
2. Whether the probation form signed by the defendant constituted a contract controlling over the conditions imposed by the sentencing judge.
3. Whether remand was required because the second probation surrender judge made no findings identifying the conditions imposed by the sentencing judge.

Disposition

vacated