Commonwealth v. Bynoe, 4 N.E.3d 1272

Keith Bynoe appeals a probation-revocation and prison-sentence order following violations of probation conditions.
Defendant pleaded guilty in 2010 to kidnapping, assault with a dangerous weapon, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, assault and battery, and malicious destruction of property.
Probation terms were five years on several counts, to run after release from State prison; a batterer’s-program condition was imposed in 2009.
January 4, 2011: probation violation hearing notified that he failed to enroll in a certified batterer’s program, with sixty days to comply; a batterer’s program was to be started the following week.
March 8, 2011: defendant taken into custody on a District Court warrant; final probation-revocation hearing held in July 2011; sentencing followed on August 4, 2011, including a three-to-seven year State-prison term for kidnapping and related terms.
Court affirmed probation revocation and associated sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a probationer must complete a treatment program when no deadline is specified.	Bynoe: vague condition and no time limit.	He argues lack of a specific deadline affects due process.	Completed within a reasonably prompt period set by the probation department; affirmed.
Whether service of amended notice of violation on counsel satisfied due process.	Notice via attorney satisfied due process.	In-hand service required by Rule 4(b) not necessary for counsel-represented case.	Counsel-service satisfies due process; amended notice served on defendant’s attorney sufficed.
Whether probation department’s timetable for treatment imposes on defendant to show impossibility.	Department-set timetable governs compliance.	Timetable should be honored; defendant’s work schedule excuses noncompliance.	Burden on probationer to show inability to comply; timetable set by officer controls the deadline.
Whether the final revocation and sentences were properly within statutory authority and consistent with probation goals.	Sentence recommended by probation officer; revocation within range.	Sentence longer or punitive due to prior convictions.	Sentence within statutory range; not a second punishment for earlier convictions.

Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 446 Mass. 61 (Mass. 2006) (probation-violation standards; burden of proof and violations may be established by preponderance)
Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108 (Mass. 1990) (due-process requirements; written notice and disclosure)
Commonwealth v. Rosseau, 464 Mass. 315 (Mass. 2013) (due process and notice in probation violations)
Commonwealth v. Power, 420 Mass. 410 (Mass. 1995) (probation conditions must be sufficiently clear to inform prohibited conduct)
Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1972) (probation conditions adequate if they provide notice of prohibited conduct)
White v. State, 560 N.E.2d 45 (Ind. 1990) (probationary treatment-program deadlines explained)