State of New Hampshire v. Russell Debreceni

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedFebruary 24, 2023
Docket2021-0456
StatusUnpublished

This text of State of New Hampshire v. Russell Debreceni (State of New Hampshire v. Russell Debreceni) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State of New Hampshire v. Russell Debreceni, (N.H. 2023).

Opinion

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2021-0456, State of New Hampshire v. Russell Debreceni, the court on February 24, 2023, issued the following order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted on appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The defendant, Russell Debreceni, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Delker, J.) denying his motion to modify the no-contact provision of his sentence, which was part of a negotiated plea. We affirm.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by ruling on his motion without first holding an evidentiary hearing. As the appealing party, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our review of the trial court’s order, the defendant’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed reversible error by deciding his motion to modify without an evidentiary hearing. See id.; see also State v. Perfetto, 160 N.H. 675, 680-81 (2010) (deciding that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s state due process rights by not holding a hearing on his motion to amend a condition of his suspended sentences); cf. Grote v. Powell, 132 N.H. 96, 99 (1989) (concluding in a habeas corpus proceeding that “the court need not hold a hearing if the existing record of the case clearly indicates that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested on the grounds alleged”).

Affirmed.

MacDonald, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas, Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Perfetto
7 A.3d 1179 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2010)
Ralph P. Gallo & a. v. Susan Traina & a.
166 N.H. 737 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2014)
Grote v. Powell
562 A.2d 152 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of New Hampshire v. Russell Debreceni, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-new-hampshire-v-russell-debreceni-nh-2023.