State v. Hemingway, 97 A.3d 465

Defendant pleaded guilty (plea agreement signed) to first-degree aggravated domestic assault and related release-condition violations; plea included a special probation term forbidding abuse/harassment of the complainant (his wife).
At sentencing the court orally described conditions and said "the other conditions we’ve described here all apply," but defendant never received the statutorily required written certificate of probation conditions under 28 V.S.A. § 252(c) and never signed a probation order.
Several months later the State charged a violation after an altercation and other contacts; a multi-day merits hearing was held with testimony from the complainant, probation officer, and family members.
The trial court found the complainant had a spotty credibility history but ultimately credited her account and found defendant violated the no-abuse-or-harassment condition, revoking probation and ordering execution of the sentence.
On appeal defendant argued (1) lack of the § 252(c) certificate/notice made the condition unenforceable and (2) trial-court credibility findings were inadequate and erroneous.
The Supreme Court majority reversed because the State failed to provide the written certificate required by § 252(c); it declined to resolve the other issues. A dissent argued the omission was harmless because defendant had actual notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to give the § 252(c) written certificate renders probation conditions unenforceable	State: actual notice (plea agreement, oral statement, probation order) suffices; certificate omission is harmless	Defendant: statutory requirement mandatory — no certificate, condition unenforceable	Reversed revocation: § 252(c) noncompliance invalidates enforcement of probation condition absent the required written certificate
Whether plea agreement or oral statements can substitute for § 252(c) certificate	State: plea agreement (signed) and oral recitation created binding notice/contract	Defendant: plea agreements are not binding on the sentencing court and cannot substitute for the court-issued certificate required by § 252(c)	Court: plea agreement and oral recitation do not satisfy § 252(c); only signed probation order/certificate suffices
Whether trial court’s credibility findings were adequate to support revocation	State: court made findings, credited complainant despite spotty history	Defendant: findings insufficient/erroneous	Not reached (decision resolved on statutory-notice ground)

State v. St. Francis, 160 Vt. 352, 628 A.2d 556 (Vt. 1993) (discusses timing/effect of probation order and signature)
In re Soon Kwon, 189 Vt. 598, 19 A.3d 139 (Vt. 2011) (statutory notice methods may be mandatory depending on statutory purpose)
Daniels v. Elks Club of Hartford, 192 Vt. 114, 58 A.3d 925 (Vt. 2012) (distinguishes contexts where actual notice may substitute for prescribed notice)
State v. Blaise, 191 Vt. 564, 38 A.3d 1167 (Vt. 2012) (illustrates problems from vague/oral probation directives and need for clarity)
State v. Peck, 149 Vt. 617, 547 A.2d 1329 (Vt. 1988) (due process requires fair notice of acts that may constitute probation violations)
State v. Austin, 165 Vt. 389, 685 A.2d 1076 (Vt. 1996) (facial challenges to probation conditions must be raised before alleged noncompliance)