State v. James Careau

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court considers a defendant's challenge to a probation condition controlling where he could live and work and to the trial court's ruling that he could not seek a lesser sentence than the sentence specified in his plea agreement. The court affirms the sentence, holding that the plea agreement bound both parties to its specified sentence and did not permit the defendant to seek a downward departure. It reverses and remands as to probation condition 43 because imposing the condition without findings or explanation constituted plain error.

Holdings

1. Imposing a probation condition controlling where a probationer may live and work, without findings explaining its necessity, is plain error when the condition is not shown to be reasonably related to rehabilitation or necessary to reduce risks to public safety.
2. When a plea agreement expressly includes a specified sentence, the defendant is bound by that sentencing term and breaches the agreement by seeking a lower sentence, even though the sentencing court itself is not bound and may impose the agreed sentence or a less onerous disposition.
3. The right of allocution does not permit a defendant to argue for a sentence that contravenes the explicit terms of a specified-sentence plea agreement, and the right may be waived or bargained away.

Questions Presented

1. Whether probation condition 43, giving the probation officer control over defendant’s residence and employment, was plain error because it was overbroad and lacked findings showing that it was reasonably related to rehabilitation or necessary to protect public safety.
2. Whether a defendant breaches a plea agreement containing a specified sentence by requesting a less onerous sentence at sentencing.
3. Whether the defendant’s right of allocution permits him to argue for a sentence contrary to the express terms of a specified-sentence plea agreement.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded