State v. Adams

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

State v. Adams

455 A.2d 1030, 123 N.H. 64, 1983 N.H. LEXIS 223

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedJanuary 24, 1983

DocketNo. 82-304

StatusPublished

This text of 455 A.2d 1030 (State v. Adams) 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 v. Adams, 455 A.2d 1030, 123 N.H. 64, 1983 N.H. LEXIS 223 (N.H. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum Opinion

The defendant pleaded guilty to criminal welfare fraud, RSA 167:17-b, IV (current version at RSA 167:17-b, 1(d) (Supp. 1981)), two years ago and was given a jail sentence. One year and 261 days of the jail sentence was suspended. In addition, the defendant was placed on probation and ordered to make restitution to the State in the amount of $7,556.67 in weekly installments of $30. A probation violation report resulted in a hearing in May 1982, at which there was testimony that: (1) she had failed to report, (2) she had left the State without notice, and (3) she had made no restitution. Her probation officer testified that the defendant was “uncooperative.” The Trial Court (Goode, J.) found that the defendant had violated her probation, revoked it, and ordered her to be incarcerated for the term of her sentence that had been suspended.

Failure to report to her probation officer and leaving the State without notice were sufficient grounds to justify revocation of probation. See Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1089, 453 A.2d 1304, 1307 (1982); Stone v. Shea, 113 N.H. 174, 177, 304 A.2d 647, 649 (1973). Consequently, we need not address the defendant’s claim that she may not constitutionally be incarcerated for failure to make restitution based upon indigency.

Affirmed.

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

Memorandum Opinion

The defendant pleaded guilty to criminal welfare fraud, RSA 167:17-b, IV (current version at RSA 167:17-b, 1(d) (Supp. 1981)), two years ago and was given a jail sentence. One year and 261 days of the jail sentence was suspended. In addition, the defendant was placed on probation and ordered to make restitution to the State in the amount of $7,556.67 in weekly installments of $30. A probation violation report resulted in a hearing in May 1982, at which there was testimony that: (1) she had failed to report, (2) she had left the State without notice, and (3) she had made no restitution. Her probation officer testified that the defendant was “uncooperative.” The Trial Court (Goode, J.) found that the defendant had violated her probation, revoked it, and ordered her to be incarcerated for the term of her sentence that had been suspended.

Failure to report to her probation officer and leaving the State without notice were sufficient grounds to justify revocation of probation. See Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1089, 453 A.2d 1304, 1307 (1982); Stone v. Shea, 113 N.H. 174, 177, 304 A.2d 647, 649 (1973). Consequently, we need not address the defendant’s claim that she may not constitutionally be incarcerated for failure to make restitution based upon indigency.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

455 A.2d 1030, 123 N.H. 64, 1983 N.H. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-adams-nh-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack