Previous Story
Court’s jurisdiction on expired probation matter questioned
|
Posted on Jun 18 2012
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
Reporter
The Office of the Public Defender has moved to dismiss the government’s motion to revoke the probation of an ex-convict because his term of probation had already expired.
Assistant public defender Daniel T. Guidotti, counsel for Raymond N. Saka, asserted that the Superior Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Saka because his probation term expired before the Office of Adult Probation moved to toll Saka’s probation.
According to court records, on Oct. 13, 2010, Saka pleaded guilty to assault and battery. The Superior Court’s commitment order placed the defendant on probation for one year.
Guidotti said the court’s commitment order provided that Saka was sentenced to six months in jail, all suspended except for 15 days, with credit for one day time served.
The order required Saka to report to the Department of Corrections on Oct. 25, 2010. The order stated that the defendant was to be released on Nov. 9, 2010.
Guidotti said in accordance with the court’s order, Saka served 14 days in custody and was released from DOC on Nov. 9, 2010.
The defense lawyer said that, on Oct. 26, 2011, one year and 13 days after the court ordered Saka placed on probation, a probation officer made an oral motion to revoke Saka’s probation.
The Office of the Attorney General then filed a notice of revocation hearing on Dec. 5, 2011.
Guidotti said to date, Saka has received no probation extensions.
Guidotti said the OAP believed that Saka’s probation was to expire on Nov. 9, 2011.
The lawyer said this error occurred because Saka was incarcerated for 14 days, from Oct. 25 to Nov. 9.
“For whatever reason, the OAP used Mr. Saka’s release date from DOC to calculate the expiration date of the probationary period,” Guidotti said.
Saka contended that, consistent with the court’s order, his probation began on Oct. 13, 2011, regardless whether he appeared at the OAP on Oct. 13.
“If Mr. Saka failed to appear on Oct. 13, 2011, this would amount to a violation of his probation, but would not otherwise change the probation start date,” the lawyer added.
