Summary
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the State’s motion to bring forward the defendant’s suspended sentences based on parole-condition violations. The court held that “good behavior” in a suspended sentence means conduct conforming to law and that the defendant lacked sufficient notice that later parole conditions would be incorporated into that requirement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a violation of parole conditions, without proof that the defendant violated the law, establishes a violation of a suspended sentence's condition of good behavior.
- Whether the defendant had sufficient notice at sentencing that later-imposed parole conditions would become conditions of good behavior under his suspended sentences.
- Whether the superior court abused its discretion by denying the State's motion to bring forward the suspended sentences.
Holdings
- Good behavior is defined as conduct conforming to the law; therefore, the State had to prove that Cooper violated the law to establish a violation of the good-behavior condition.
- The defendant did not have actual notice at sentencing that later-imposed parole conditions would be included within the good-behavior condition of his suspended sentences.
- The superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying the State's motion to bring forward and impose the suspended sentences.
Key quotations
“In State v. Budgett, 146 N.H. 135 (2001), we held today that good behavior is defined as conduct conforming to the law.” (141)
“In this case, to impose the defendant’s suspended sentences based upon his parole violations would be inconsistent with principles of notice and certainty in the sentencing process.” (142)
Factual background
Cooper pleaded guilty to five counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault in 1993. His sentences on four counts were suspended during good behavior and compliance with specified conditions, including completion of a sex-offender program and no contact with the victim. After being released on parole, Cooper violated parole conditions, his parole was revoked, and the State sought to impose the suspended sentences based on those violations.
Procedural history
Cooper pleaded guilty to five counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault and received prison sentences, several of which were suspended subject to good behavior and specified conditions. After his parole was revoked for violating parole conditions, the State moved to impose the suspended sentences. The superior court denied the motion, concluding that good behavior required unlawful conduct and that Cooper lacked notice that violating later-imposed parole conditions would violate the suspended sentences. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed.