 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Simon1/15/2003
Suffolk.
February 7, 2002
Practice, Criminal , Revocation of probation, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement. Due Process of Law, Probation revocation. Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions. Intoxication. Evidence, Corroborative evidence, Declaration against interest.
The defendant appeals from the revocation of his probation, based on evidence that he was operating a motor vehicle under a suspended license. Probation had been imposed on November 16, 1999, in Brighton District Court, after the defendant admitted to sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty on a charge of operating a motor vehicle under a suspended license. The judge continued the case without a finding and placed the defendant under the supervision of a probation officer on terms that, among others, required that he "obey all court orders and local, tate and ederal laws" until May 19, 2000.
On January 2, 2000, the defendant was stopped by the Mashpee police on his way home from a football game. The stop resulted in new charges being lodged against the defendant in Falmouth District Court for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and operating a motor vehicle under a suspended license. The new offense triggered the issuance of a written notice of a probation violation from the Brighton District Court, stating the defendant was not in compliance with the terms of his probation because of the new complaint.
After a hearing on March 3, 2000, the judge found that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation on the basis of his admission to the Mashpee police during his arrest that he had driven his car earlier in the day. The judge entered a guilty finding, and modified the terms of probation by extending the probationary period to one year from the date of the hearing and imposing a suspended, ten-day house of correction sentence.
On appeal, the defendant argues that the entry of a guilty finding and the order modifying the terms of his probation should be reversed because (1) the grounds stated as the reason for revoking his probation were different from those for which he had received written notification; (2) the defendant's admission was unreliable, because the police officer who testified was unsure of the exact statement, and because it was contradicted by other information contained in the police reports; (3) the admission was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a finding that he had violated the law, because it was uncorroborated; and (4) his admission was not the product of voluntary actions, because at the time of the admission he was intoxicated, and prior to his admission he had not been given his Miranda warnings. We affirm the revocation decision.
We summarize the relevant facts as presented at the revocation hearing. On January 2, 2000, Officer Jon Read of the Mashpee police department was traveling northbound on Route 130. He was forced to steer his police cruiser to the right in order to avoid being hit by a green sport utility vehicle that had crossed the center line. Read testified at the hearing that he was unable to see who was driving or how many people were in the vehicle. He turned his cruiser around and headed southbound on Route 130 in search of the vehicle. Read found it parked at the side of the road. Read observed the defendant standing toward the back of the vehicle, on the driver's side.
Read stopped, exited, and walked toward the defendant. As Read approached, the defendant walked to the passenger side of the vehicle, sat in the passenger seat, and began to look through the glove box. Read asked the defendant where the driver was; the defe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Massachusetts DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|