 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Anderson6/20/2000
ce falls somewhere in between Ommundson and Hatfield; the court has delegated authority to Anderson's probation officer with no guidance on how that authority is to be exercised. The court simply granted the probation officer the authority to choose a person to supervise visitations and to require supervision "until such time as his Probation Officer feels supervision is no longer necessary." (Emphasis added.) There is no way to determine whether Anderson's probation officer will exercise this unfettered discretion in such a manner that Anderson's visitation condition will be reasonably related to either Anderson's rehabilitation or the protection of the victim. For instance, the District Court's sentence does not prevent the probation officer from simply determining that Anderson's visits do not require supervision at all, because this determination is left to the probation officer's feelings. Nor does the District Court's sentence prevent the probation officer from appointing inappropriate supervision for Anderson's visits with his son. Accordingly, we conclude that this provision of the District Court's sentence and judgment is unlawful in that we are unable to determine whether it is reasonably related to the rehabilitation of the defendant or the protection of the victim and society. On remand, the District Court might set some standards upon which the probation officer can choose who will supervise the Defendant and for how long such supervision will be required.
Anderson requests that this provision be stricken from the District Court's sentence and judgment. The State urges us to remand this case to the District Court in order to allow the court to lawfully restrict unsupervised contact between Anderson and his son if the court so chooses.
We reverse and remand for resentencing.
JIM REGNIER
We Concur:
J. A. TURNAGE
WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.
KARLA M. GRAY
W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
|