State v. Blaise, 38 A.3d 1167

Defendant Scott Blaise pled guilty in May 2007 to multiple offenses, received a suspended sentence with probation and standard conditions including counseling, community service, and fines.
In October 2007 a new plea added charges and another probation sentence with similar conditions plus 100 hours of community service and fines to be paid as directed.
Before the Chittenden charges, Blaise enrolled in Teen Challenge; a probation contract signed August 2007 referenced Teen Challenge but did not clearly require it.
In January 2008 Teen Challenge left for Morrisville, Teen Challenge notified the Morrisville officer; VOPs alleging leaving Teen Challenge and failing to participate in counseling, pay fines, and complete community service were filed in March 2008.
May 6, 2008 merits hearing found Blaise violated counseling, community service, and fines conditions; June 2, 2008 sentencing occurred under a global resolution including other admitted violations.
On appeal, Blaise argued there was no written requirement to attend Teen Challenge and the State failed to prove the other violations; the Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leaving Teen Challenge violated probation when no written requirement existed	Blaise: no written directive; no notice of violation	Blaise: counseling requirement was ambiguous; not tied to Teen Challenge	Violation not proven; ambiguity favoring Blaise
Whether failure to pay fines was proven given no payment schedule	State: contract identified fines but no schedule	Blaise: no proof of schedule or timely payment	No proven violation due to lack of payment schedule and evidence
Whether failure to complete 140 hours of community service was proven	State: hours could be verified via Teen Challenge; no verification produced	Blaise: no written verification required; oral reports insufficient	No proven violation due to lack of verification and clear schedule
Whether any error is harmless given admitted violent behavior violation	Even with errors, reinstated sentence supported by admitted VOP	Reversal warranted; other violations not proved	Errors not harmless; remand for resentencing

State v. Peck, 149 Vt. 617 (Vt. 1988) (due process notice may be oral from probation officer; counseling completion must be understood)
State v. Austin, 165 Vt. 389 (Vt. 1996) (burden on probation violation; mixed law-fact question)
State v. Miles, 2011 VT 6 (VT 2011) (probation-violation determinations; standard of review)
State v. Woolbert, 2007 VT 26 (VT 2007) (trial court findings; implications for probation interpretations)
Isbrandtsen v. N. Branch Corp., 150 Vt. 575 (VT 1988) (ambiguous contract terms may require extrinsic evidence)
State v. Murray, 159 Vt. 198 (VT 1992) (contract-like nature of probation terms; interpretation rules)