Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court held that a trial court has jurisdiction in a probation-revocation proceeding to determine whether a probationer violated a substantive condition, even when the alleged violation arose from the Department of Corrections’ termination of the probationer from a treatment program. The court distinguished cases limiting direct review of DOC programming decisions and reversed and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the defendant violated the VTPSA rule against physical violence or threats and whether revocation was appropriate.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a superior court conducting a probation-violation hearing has authority to review the factual and legal basis for a DOC decision terminating a probationer from a required treatment program.
- Whether the court could find a probation violation solely from defendant's failure to complete the VTPSA program without determining whether defendant violated the program's substantive prohibition on physical violence or threats of physical violence.
- Whether the court had to exercise discretion regarding whether the alleged violation warranted revocation of probation.
Holdings
- A superior court has exclusive jurisdiction over whether probation should be revoked and may consider the underlying conduct supporting an alleged probation violation, even though it may not have jurisdiction to conduct a direct administrative review of the DOC's programming decision.
- Failure to complete a required treatment program does not, by itself, establish a probation violation when noncompletion resulted from termination based on alleged misconduct; the court must determine whether the probationer violated the substantive program requirement that forms the ground for revocation.
- Even after finding a probation violation, the court retains discretion whether to revoke probation; if confinement will result, the court must also find an additional ground under 28 V.S.A. § 303(b).
Key quotations
“Here, although the termination of defendant’s participation in VTPSA was a programming decision with consequences in the correctional system, the court was not reviewing that decision or its internal consequences. Rather, the court was deciding whether to revoke defendant’s probation, an action over which the trial court has exclusive jurisdiction.” (199 Vt. at 551-52)
“The role of the court is to determine whether a violation occurred, not to review the probation officer’s exercise of discretion.” (199 Vt. at 552)
“The court failed to determine whether the requirement was violated. Nor did it exercise its discretion to determine whether the alleged violation was such that revocation should be ordered.” (199 Vt. at 553)
Factual background
Defendant was placed on probation after being convicted of aggravated sexual assault, with a condition requiring full participation in the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Abusers. The program prohibited physical violence and threats of physical violence. During a meeting concerning disciplinary reports, defendant crumpled and threw paperwork that struck or may have struck a corrections officer; the DOC upheld a major disciplinary report and terminated defendant from the program. The State then alleged that defendant violated probation by failing to complete the program.
Procedural history
Defendant was sentenced for aggravated sexual assault to five-to-fifteen years, suspended except for four years to serve, subject to probation conditions including completion of the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Abusers. After the Department of Corrections terminated defendant from the program for alleged violent or threatening behavior, the State filed a probation-violation complaint. The superior court declined to review the underlying DOC decision, found a probation violation based solely on defendant's failure to complete the program, and defendant appealed.
Remand instructions
The superior court must conduct the appropriate review, determine whether defendant violated the VTPSA prohibition on physical violence or threats of physical violence, and exercise its discretion regarding whether probation should be revoked.