Cited by

When the court retains the power to impose incarceration at a later time, the defendant’s liberty remains conditioned upon his or her compliance with the original sentence’s terms.

endant argues that “[t]he circumstances here are at least as compelling as other instances in which a defendant’s [state and federal constitutional] right[s] to due process of law require[] the sentencing court to state on the record the reasons for the sentence imposed.” He seeks to liken his circumstance to that of a defendant whose suspended sentence has been revoked, see Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1088 (1982), or who has received a harsher sentence on remand, see Abram, 156 N.H. at

Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1089 (1982); see Gibbs, 157 N.H. at 540, 542 (distinguishing the “separate task[s]” of a jury determination of whether evidence established the defendant committed the alleged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, and a trial court’s evaluation of whether the evidence established a violation of the suspension conditions

In Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083 (1982), we held that whenever the trial court “retains the power to impose incarceration [on the defendant] at a later time,” the defendant must be afforded due process protections before the imposition may occur.

Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1088 (1982); State v. Flood, 159 N.H. 353, 355 (2009).

Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1088 (1982); Moody v. Cunningham, 127 N.H. 550, 553 (1986); Baker, 128 N.H. at 378, 381; see also Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972) (parole revocation deprives individual of conditional liberty).

Rothgery v. Gillespie County, Tex., 128 S. Ct. 2578, 2592 (2008) (“[A] criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a judicial officer, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the start of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.”); cf. Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1088 (1982) (finding that a significant liberty interest exists when commitment may be the sanction, requiring due proces

“It is in the sentencing process that punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation meet in a common forum where the court, within the framework of the Criminal Code and the common law, conveys society’s sanctions upon a particular defendant for a certain crime.” Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1087 (1982).

To the extent that the defendant argues that our decision in Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083 (1982), precludes us from adopting the Roberson rule, he is mistaken.

There is no question that a defendant has a due process right to a hearing before a court can impose a suspended or deferred sentence of incarceration.

We have held that “[a]t the conclusion of the sentencing proceeding, a defendant and the society which brought him to court must known in plain and certain terms what punishment has been exacted by the court as well as the extent to which the court retained discretion to impose punishment at a later date and under what conditions the sentence may be modified.” Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1087 (1982).

Nevertheless, while the petitioner did not have a statutory right to a revocation hearing within forty-five days of the April 19, 2005 scheduled hearing, he is still afforded due process protections against unreasonable deprivations of his conditional liberty interest, including protections against an unreasonable delay between his arrest and parole revocation hearing.

at 116-17; see also Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1087 (1982) (requiring that *268 a defendant know “in plain and certain terms” the extent to which the-court retains discretion to impose punishment at a later date).

While we have found that when a trial court retains the power to impose incarceration at a later time, the defendant has been afforded liberty, albeit conditional, which may not be revoked without due process, Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1088 (1982), “[i]t is quite another matter...

We have held that when a court retains the power to impose incarceration at a later time, the defendant has been afforded conditional liberty which may not be revoked without due process.

In Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1087 (1982), we set forth the principle that: At the conclusion of the sentencing proceeding, a defendant and the society which brought him to court must know in plain and certain terms what punishment has been exacted by the court as well as the extent to which the court retained discretion to impose punishment at a

is not [an inquiry] to establish criminal liability.” Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1089 (1982).

These requirements include “the opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and evidence.” Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1088, 453 A.2d 1304, 1307 (1982).

We have characterized sentencing as the process in which rehabilitation, deterrence, and punishment converge, and where the sentencing court, directed by the Criminal Code and common law, hands down society’s punishment upon a defendant for his or her crime.

These requirements include the right to notice, to disclosure of evidence, to present evidence, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, to a record, and, as we held in Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1088, 453 A.2d 1304, 1307 (1982), to representation by counsel.

as well as the extent to which the court retain[s] discretion to impose punishment at a later date and under what conditions the sentence may be modified.” Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1087, 453 A.2d 1304, 1306 (1982).

must know in plain and certain terms what punishment has been exacted by the court.” Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1087, 453 A.2d 1304, 1306 (1982).

Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 781-82 (1973) (adopting analysis of Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488 (1972)); Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1088, 453 A.2d 1304, 1306-07 (1982) (adopting analysis of Gagnon v. Scarpelli and Morrissey v. Brewer); cf. State v. Adams, 133 N.H. 818, 824, 585 A.2d 853, 856 (1991) (unreasonable delay in prosecution violates due process).

We have previously stated that our constitution requires that a defendant be informed at the time of sentencing “in plain and certain terms what punishment has been exacted by the court as well as the extent to which the court retained discretion to impose punishment at a later date and under what conditions the sentence may be modified.” Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1087, 453 A.2d 1304, 1306 (1982); see also State v. Timmons, 130 N.H. 831, 836, 547 A.2d 312, 315 (1988) (“sentence must b

If we find that due process applies, “the question remains what process is due.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972); see Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1088, 453 A.2d 1304, 1307 (1982).

Citing Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 453 A.2d 1304 (1982), we stated that “a defendant whose retained liberty interest is to be revoked in whole or in part is entitled to a due process hearing and the opportunity to be heard to test the State’s case against him and to offer evidence in his own behalf in an effort to defeat the revocation.” Defendant wa

The defendant argues, however, that a defendant in a detention hearing should receive, at the least, the procedural safeguards afforded a convicted defendant facing revocation of a grant of conditional liberty, which include “the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.” Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1088, 453 A.2d 1304, 1307 (1982).

He places great faith upon our discussion of protected rights in the sentencing process as set forth in Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 453 A.2d 1304 (1982); State v. Rau, 129 N.H. 126, 523 A.2d 98 (1987); and State v. Ingerson, 130 N.H. 112, 536 A.2d 161 (1987).

*835 Both parties rely primarily on State v. Rau, 129 N.H. 126, 523 A.2d 98 (1987) and Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 453 A.2d 1304 (1982) to support their contentions that the March 25 order was plain, certain and determinable, even though the defendant and the State interpret the order differently.

Similarly, in Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1087, 453 A.2d 1304, 1306 (1982), we remarked that “a defendant and the society which brought him to court must know in plain and certain terms what punishment has been exacted by the court as well as the extent to which the court retained discretion *116 to impose punishment at a later date and under what condition

ng, a defendant and the society which brought him to court must know in plain and certain terms what punishment has been exacted by the court as well as the extent to which the court retained discretion to impose punishment at a later date and under what conditions the sentence may be modified.” State v. Michael B., 124 N.H. 590, 592-93, 474 A.2d 564, 565-66 (1984) (quoting Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1087, 453 A.2d 1304, 1306 (1982)); see also United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360,

or *379 upon deferral of sentence, Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 453 A.2d 1304 (1982); the right to limit conditions of confinement during incarceration to those authorized by the sentence, Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980); and the right to retain good behavior credits that have a bearing on the ultimate decision to parole or release a prisoner, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 53

King, C.J. In these cases, consolidated on appeal, we must decide whether use of an untried indictment as the sole evidence in a hearing for revocation of parole or imposition of a suspended sentence violates the due process standards established in Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 453 A.2d 1304 (1982).

Within these parameters, the judge has broad discretion to assign different sentences, suspend sentence, or grant probation in order to achieve the goals of punishment, deterrence, protection of society and rehabilitation.

This court has analogously held that termination of freedom by revocation of a suspended sentence involves constitutional liberty interests.

Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 453 A.2d 1304 (1982); Petition of Harvey, 108 N.H. 196, 230 A.2d 757 (1967).

t is a fundamental rule that “[a]t the conclusion of the sentencing proceeding, a defendant and the society which brought him to court must know in plain and certain terms what punishment has been exacted by the court as well as the extent to which the *593 court retained discretion to impose punishment at a later date and under what conditions the sentence may be modified.” Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1087, 453 A.2d 1304, 1306 (1982); see United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360, 363 (

Pate v. Smith, 637 F.2d 1068, 1072 (6th Cir. 1981); cf. Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 1088, 453 A.2d 1304, 1307 (1982) (defining due process rights in cases of delayed incarceration).

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).