mime-version: 1.0 content-location: file:///C:/23674716/eo05-076.htm content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable content-type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
= ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp;  = ; &= nbsp; ENTRY ORDER
= ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-076
= ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp;  = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp;
= &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = &n= bsp; MARCH TERM, 2005
State of Vermont = &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = <= /span>} = APPEALED FROM:
v. = &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = &n= bsp; } = District Court of Vermont,
Glenn Prior  = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp;  = ; &= nbsp; }
} = DOCKET NO. 253-2-05 Wmcr
= &n= bsp; &nbs= p; In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
Defendant appeals from the February 16, 2005 order of the district court revoking defendant’s conditions of release and holding him without bail under= 13 V.S.A. § 7575. The court issued its ruling from the bench following an evidentiary hearing on the State’s motion to revoke conditions of release at which seven witnes= ses testified. Pursuant to 13 V.= S.A. § 7556(b), this Court held a telephonic hearing on Tuesday, March 8, = 2005 with Deputy State’s Attorney Tracy Shriver and defense counsel Eileen Hongisto. For the reasons ex= plained below, the district court’s order is affirmed.
By way of background, defendant had been convicted of first degree aggravated domestic assault on his wife in 1998 and served four years. Upon his release from the correct= ional facility, defendant and his wife resumed living together.
On January 19, 2005, wife obtained a Relief from Abuse Order from the Windham County Family Court, which was served on defendant. On February 2, 2005, defendant was arraigned on two counts of violation of the Relief from Abuse Order. On February 14, 2005, defendant w= as charged with two new counts of violations of the Relief from Abuse Order, alleging: (1) that he placed himself within 100 feet of his wife, her residence, place of employment or her motor vehicle; and (2) that he follo= wed or stalked his wife. On Febr= uary 14, 2005, defendant was also charged with three counts of violations of conditions of release, alleging: (1) that he left the county without the court’s permission; (2) that he failed to abide by all Family Court orders in effect; (3) and that he knowingly was within 100 feet of a person named in Condition 14 of the Conditions of Release, namely, his wife, the subject of the Relief from Abuse Order.&n= bsp; He was arrested and held without bail.
charges in this docket resulted from an incident on February 11, 2005, when
Mrs. Prior was traveling by car and observed defendant following her in hi=
along multiple legs of her route that day in Vermont and New Hampshire.
Based on the testimony at the hearing, the court concluded that defendant’= s conduct on February 11 was meant to intimidate Mrs. Prior and succeeded in doing s= o, as evidenced by her reactions—calling 911, stopping when she saw Officer McConnell (who testified that Mrs. Prior appeared “nervous” and “concerned” when she approached him that day), lodging a compl= aint against defendant with the Windham County Sheriff Department, and making several calls to the Sheriff to find out if defendant had been taken into custody. Accordingly, the co= urt found that defendant’s conduct caused Mrs. Prior “to feel extr= emely intimidated.” The cour= t also concluded that the conditions that defendant avoid contact with Mrs. Prior= and not leave the State of Vermont were “unambiguous” and “n= ot susceptible of misunderstanding,” especially in light of defendant= 8217;s “extensive experience with court orders and conditions of release.” Accordingly,= the court revoked bail pursuant to § 7575(1) & (3), which provide tha= t
[t]he right to bail may be revoked entirely if the judicial officer finds that t= he accused has:
(1) intimidated or harassed a victim, potential witness, juror or judicial off= icer in violation of a condition of release; or
. . .
(3) violated a condition or conditions of release which constitute a threat to= the integrity of the judicial system.
Defendant then filed this appeal pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7556(b).
Under § 7556(b), defendant may appeal the district court’s order to a single justice of this Court. This Court applies the standard of review set forth in the statute: “Any = order so appealed shall be affirmed if it is supported by the proceedings below.” § 7556(b)= . In light of the district court= 217;s familiarity with defendant, defendant’s undisputed and extensive pri= or experience with relief from abuse orders and conditions of release, and th= e testimony adduced at the hearing and relied upon by the district court, I find that = the district court’s conclusion that defendant intimidated Mrs. Prior in violation of both the Relief from Abuse Order and defendant’s condit= ions of release within the meaning of § 7575(1) is supported by the proceedings.
Further, the record supports the court’s ruling that the defendant’s violations of his conditions of release threaten the integrity of the judi= cial system in violation of § 7575(3).&nb= sp; The court concluded, based on the testimony, that defendant had previously engaged in conduct intended to control his wife to the extent of influencing her testimony concerning the 1998 incident for which defendant= was convicted of domestic assault. The court also found, based on the evidence at the hearing, that defendantR= 17;s current behavior was another attempt to intimidate and control his wife, a= nd thereby control his legal situation.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, I affirm the district court’s order revoking defendant’s conditions of release and holding him without b= ail.
FOR THE COURT:
Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice