State v. Galloway

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Meade

    2024 Vt. 23 (Vt. 2024)

    In State v. Galloway, we reversed the trial court's conclusion that the defendant violated a probation condition requiring him to complete "a program for sex offenders approved by DOC and assume the cost of your treatment" by failing to complete the VTPSA high-intensity program while he was incarcerated. 2020 VT 29, ¶¶ 2, 17, 212 Vt. 91, 231 A.3d 1157. We examined the plain language of the condition and determined that the DOC's interpretation of the condition to require defendant to complete VTPSA was unsupported because the condition did not specify a particular program; used the word "approved," rather than "directed" or some other verb suggesting that DOC had discretion to mandate a specific program; required defendant to pay for his treatment, which implied he could complete programming in the community; and, as a whole, indicated that defendant had a choice of programs. Id.

  2. State v. Burnett

    2022 Vt. 30 (Vt. 2022)

    For example, in State v. Galloway, the defendant was found to 7 have violated a condition requiring him to "successfully enroll, participate in, and complete a program for sex offenders approved by [the Department of Corrections]" by failing to complete the VTPSA while he was serving the incarcerative portion of his sentence. 2020 VT 29, ¶ 17, 212 Vt. 91, 231 A.3d 1157. This Court reversed the conviction, concluding that the Department's interpretation of the condition constituted an impermissible modification because it added a requirement not expressly or impliedly present in the condition, namely, requiring defendant to complete the program offered in prison, as opposed to a community-based program.

  3. State v. Harwood

    2020 Vt. 65 (Vt. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    A probation officer's instructions can provide a defendant notice of what a court-imposed condition means; they cannot expand the scope of the court's condition. See, e.g., State v. Galloway, 2020 VT 29, ¶¶ 13-14, ––– Vt. ––––, 231 A.3d 1157 (explaining that probation officer crosses line between implementation and modification of probation condition when officer's interpretation of condition is inconsistent with its plain language); State v. Bostwick, 2014 VT 97, ¶¶ 16-22, 197 Vt. 345, 103 A.3d 476 (holding that defendant could not be found in violation of probation for failing to satisfy requirement imposed by his probation officer but not actually included in probation conditions imposed by court). Here, for the reasons set forth above, the correction officer's and unit supervisor's warnings that defendant's words and actions could violate Condition N was entirely consistent with the condition itself.