State v. Danforth

State of Vermont v. William Danforth II*

No. 22-AP-348

Supreme Court of Vermont

December 30, 2022

APPEALED FROM: Superior Court, Bennington Unit, Criminal Division CASE NO. 21-CR-09872 Trial Judge: Kerry Ann McDonald-Cady

ENTRY ORDER

Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Defendant appeals from the criminal division's continuation of bail in the amount of $50,000 and addition of condition (13) preventing defendant from possessing deadly weapons. Defendant also challenges the court's determination that it is without the necessary authority to review the Department of Correction's (DOC) revocation of defendant's participation in the home-detention program. We affirm the continuation of monetary bail in the amount of $50,000 and the addition of condition (13) prohibiting defendant from possessing deadly weapons. We reverse the criminal division's determination that it is without authority to review a revocation of home detention under 13 V.S.A. § 7554b and remand for further findings consistent with this order.

Defendant was arrested on November 16, 2021, and charged with five felony crimes, all of which contain an element of violence. Defendant was released contingent on several conditions including that he stay away from the alleged victim and appear at his arraignment the next day. He failed to appear and an arrest warrant was issued, resulting in defendant's rearrest on January 11, 2022. At arraignment, the criminal division held defendant without bail pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7553a pending a weight-of-the-evidence hearing. After the hearing, the court issued a written decision continuing to hold defendant without bail pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7553a, which allows a person to be held without bail prior to trial in certain circumstances. See also Vt. Const. ch. II, § 40. On March 16, 2022, defendant filed a motion to review bail, alleging that he was entitled to release under 13 V.S.A. § 7553b(b), which provides that if the trial is not commenced within 60 days and the delay is not attributable to the defense, the court must schedule a hearing and set bail.

A bail review hearing was held, and the court struck the hold-without-bail order, setting bail in the amount of $100,000. Defendant remained incarcerated because he was unable to meet the monetary bail requirement. Defendant moved for home detention and DOC prepared a home-detention report for the court's review pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7554b(b). Defendant's initial motions for home detention were denied, but a renewed motion was granted on May 25, 2022. After defendant was approved for home detention, his conditions were modified by stipulation to allow for employment as well as running regular errands. Defendant procured such employment at the Pleasant Valley Tree Farm in Bennington, Vermont, and his supervisor described defendant as a dependable and good employee.

On November 18, 2022, DOC determined that defendant's GPS monitoring unit failed to make a connection with the server due to a lack of charge. Defendant was contacted by DOC and instructed to report to Probation and Parole, where his home-detention status was revoked, and he was returned to Marble Valley Correctional Facility for inability to post the $100,000 bail imposed by the court. Defendant then filed an emergency motion to review bail with the criminal division on the grounds that there had been a material change in circumstances. Defendant sought an order from the criminal division returning him to the home-detention program, or, alternatively, striking the monetary bail requirement and releasing him on conditions. The court held a hearing on November 28, 2022, and issued a written order on December 9, 2022, granting and denying defendant's request in part.

In evaluating defendant's motion, the court meticulously outlined each factor required by 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b) and first evaluated defendant's risk of flight and then the need for reasonable protection of the public. It determined that the nature and seriousness of the offense, the weight of the evidence, and defendant's noncompliance with the home-detention conditions militated in favor of continuing the imposition of monetary bail to lessen defendant's risk of flight. In contrast, it also found that defendant's employment, residence in the community, and near complete compliance with home-detention conditions until DOC's revocation favored the amount of bail being reduced, but not eliminated. The court therefore reduced monetary bail to $50,000.

Turning to its analysis of conditions necessary to protect the public and incorporating its findings from its risk-of-flight analysis, the court continued the conditions preventing defendant from coming into contact with the complainant. Pursuant to these findings, it also imposed a condition that defendant not "purchase, possess or have any firearms or deadly weapons" outside of his place of employment. Regarding defendant's request to return him to the home-detention program, the court concluded that it lacked the authority to review DOC's decision to revoke defendant's participation in home detention, reasoning that the statute provides DOC with sole discretion. The court directed defendant to seek relief from the civil division pursuant to Rule 75 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure. This timely appeal followed.

Defendant now argues that the criminal division abused its discretion in continuing monetary bail in the amount of $50,000 because it failed to support its order with findings that defendant poses a risk of flight. Additionally, defendant asserts that imposing any cash bail exceeds the least restrictive condition for ensuring his appearance and is clear error where the court found no "significant risk of flight." He also argues that the addition of a condition preventing him from possessing deadly weapons was an abuse of discretion where it was not requested by either party or supported by record evidence. Finally, defendant asserts that the criminal division erred in its determination that 13 V.S.A. § 7554b did not provide the court with authority to review DOC's revocation of his participation in the home-detention program, pointing to the court's considerable discretion in setting conditions of release.

On appeal from an order setting conditions of release, we must uphold the trial court order if it is "supported by the proceedings below." 13 V.S.A. § 7556(b); State v. Booker, 2020 VT 67, ¶ 7, 212 Vt. 661 (mem.). "Although the superior court's discretion under § 7554 is broad, its decision cannot be arbitrary." State v. Cassinell, No. 2021-187, 2021 WL 4101704, *3 (Vt. Sept. 3, 2021) (unpub. mem.) [https://perma.cc/Y87R-BL27]. Questions of law, however, we review de novo. State v. Collins, 2017 VT 85, ¶ 8, 205 Vt. 632 (mem.).

Defendant argues that he was entitled to a presumption of release pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7554 where the trial court did not find him to be a "significant risk of flight."^[*] Defendant further argues that any imposition of cash bail or surety bond would not be the least restrictive means of ensuring his appearance as required by statute.

Here, the court properly weighed all the factors regarding whether he was a flight risk before imposing conditions, including the monetary bail. The court recognized the seriousness of the charges, with defendant facing up to seventy years of incarceration if convicted, as well as the nature and circumstances of the alleged crime, involving more than one incident of domestic violence. The court also acknowledged the strength of the State's cases against defendant in finding the evidence of guilt is great. As related to these factors, the court found that defendant was charged with five violent felonies, the alleged circumstances of which were egregious. The evidence presented at the weight-of-the-evidence hearing support that the evidence of guilt was great based on the extent of the victim's injuries and the course of events leading up to them. "[T]he overriding issue in this case is the seriousness of the offense and the facts and circumstances of the offense. These factors create a risk of flight from prosecution." State v. Rougeau, 2019 VT 18, ¶ 10, 209 Vt. 535.

Defendant additionally argues that the imposition of condition (13), prohibiting him from possessing deadly weapons, is reversible error because it infringes on a liberty interest without being requested or supported by evidence. The court has broad discretion to impose conditions of release both to ensure appearance as well as protect the public. 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a)(2)(D) (allowing imposition of "any other condition found reasonably necessary to protect the public"). The condition is well supported by the record below, which alleges defendant's constant threats toward the victim and use of a firearm to batter her. See State v. Humphries, No. 2016-046, 2022 WL 981925, *2 (Vt. Mar. 31, 2022) (unpub. mem.) [https://perma.cc/D5J2-26HC] (upholding condition prohibiting weapon possession where the alleged crime involved "having committed an act of domestic violence in close physical proximity to a firearm"). Therefore, the imposition of condition (13) preventing defendant from possessing a deadly weapon was supported by the record in this case.

Finally defendant argues that the criminal division erred in holding that it lacked the authority to review DOC's revocation from the home-detention program. He argues that because the authority to set conditions remains with the court, that authority necessarily extends to reviewing DOC's decision to revoke a defendant's participation in the home-detention program. The State counters that this Court is without jurisdiction to review the criminal division's decision...