State v. Lucas, 129 A.3d 646

Jeremy Lucas pleaded guilty under a deferred-sentencing agreement to disseminating indecent material to a minor and was placed on two-year deferred sentence with probation.
The probation order included "standard conditions" (Condition G: must tell probation officer within two days if you change address) and separate checked "special sex offender conditions" on a DOC form (require prior permission of probation officer before changing residence).
Lucas moved into his mother’s home without first obtaining his probation officer’s prior permission; his mother notified the officer by phone the next day and the officer later approved the residence.
The State filed a probation-violation complaint alleging Lucas violated the special-condition requirement to obtain prior permission before changing residence.
At the revocation hearing the trial court denied Lucas’s motion to dismiss, found a violation, revoked the deferred sentence, and imposed a suspended jail sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conflicting residency conditions deprived Lucas of fair notice	State: argument not raised below; enforcement of restrictive condition proper	Lucas: two inconsistent conditions (notify within two days vs. prior permission) failed to give fair notice	Court: Lucas may raise fair-notice claim at revocation, but he did not raise it below; no plain error on record
Whether the prior-approval condition is an unconstitutional over-delegation	State: barred as collateral attack since defendant didn’t appeal deferred sentence	Lucas: Freeman forbids broad delegations without findings	Court: Freeman requires findings to support broad discretion; Lucas waived direct challenge by entering deferred sentence and not appealing; collateral attack denied
Whether the violation was de minimis given prompt notice and later approval	State: pursued valid violation	Lucas: moving before approval was minor because mother promptly notified and PO approved	Court: revocation and sentencing within trial court’s discretion; no abuse of discretion found
Whether trial court erred in refusing to consider condition challenge at revocation	State: procedural default and collateral-attack bar	Lucas: should be allowed to contest condition now	Court: issues not raised below are not considered unless plain error; no plain error shown

State v. Freeman, 193 Vt. 454, 70 A.3d 1008 (Vt. 2013) (probation condition delegating control over residence/employment requires supporting findings)
State v. Sanville, 189 Vt. 626, 22 A.3d 450 (Vt. 2011) (defendant must have fair notice of what conduct will breach probation)
State v. Amidon, 188 Vt. 617, 8 A.3d 1050 (Vt. 2010) (collateral attacks on probation conditions are barred where they could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Austin, 165 Vt. 389, 685 A.2d 1076 (Vt. 1996) (same rule barring collateral challenge to probation conditions)