State v. Leblanc-Simpson, 190 A.3d 1015

LeBlanc-Simpson was arrested and had cash bail set at $10,000 with written conditions at an initial appearance; the bail form was signed by the judge but not by him.
He did not post bail and remained in Cumberland County Jail. While incarcerated he made repeated telephone calls to a named co-defendant.
The State indicted him on twelve counts of violating a condition of release (no contact with the co-defendant) for calls made from jail.
At bench trial the State introduced the docket and the judge-signed conditions form but did not produce a transcript of the initial appearance or other evidence that LeBlanc-Simpson was informed of the specific conditions or penalties.
The trial court convicted on all twelve counts; LeBlanc-Simpson appealed, arguing the conditions could not apply while he remained jailed without posting bail and that he lacked adequate notice of conditions and penalties.
The Law Court vacated the judgment, holding the State failed to prove he had been given notice of the conditions applicable to him while incarcerated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conditions of release apply immediately even if defendant remains jailed without posting bail	State: Bail Code provides conditions take effect when set, so they apply immediately	LeBlanc-Simpson: Conditions cannot apply because he was never released on bail	Conditions do take effect when set, but State must still prove defendant had notice they applied to him while jailed; conviction vacated for lack of proof of notice
Whether the State proved defendant had notice of the conditions themselves	State: The docket and judge-signed form establish the order and put defendant on notice	LeBlanc-Simpson: No transcript, no signed acknowledgment, no testimony showing he was informed	Held: Docket and form alone insufficient to prove defendant had notice of the conditions
Whether the State proved defendant was advised of penalties/consequences of violating conditions as required by statute	State: Implied compliance with statutory process	LeBlanc-Simpson: No evidence he was advised of penalties	Court: Because record lacked evidence of notice of conditions, it was unnecessary to resolve whether proof of notice of penalties was also required; inference of regularity insufficient here
Constitutional challenge to admission of the phone calls (free speech / other)	LeBlanc-Simpson: Calls protected by U.S. and Maine Constitutions	State: Calls were violations of release condition	Court: Constitutional challenge not persuasive and not addressed further

State v. Beckwith, 117 A.3d 1049 (Me. 2015) (standard for viewing evidence on sufficiency review)
State v. Cummings, 166 A.3d 996 (Me. 2017) (review of evidence in the light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Murphy, 130 A.3d 401 (Me. 2016) (same standard for sufficiency)
Jusseaume v. Ducatt, 15 A.3d 714 (Me. 2011) (due process right to notice and hearing)
In re Chelsea C., 884 A.2d 97 (Me. 2005) (due process notice and opportunity to be heard requirements)
State v. McCurdy, 10 A.3d 686 (Me. 2010) (regulated actors entitled to reasonably clear notice)
State v. Lewis, 584 A.2d 622 (Me. 1990) (presumption of regularity attaching to judgments)