State v. Pandelena
161 N.H. 326
| N.H. | 2010Background
- Defendant David J. Pandelena was convicted in Feb. 2009 of sale of a controlled drug and pled guilty to conspiracy to commit sale of a controlled drug; prison term and probation imposed.
- Mittimus allowed revocation of probation and imposition of any sentence within the legal limits for the underlying offense for probation violations.
- In June 2009, the defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of drugs; a probation violation notice followed in July 2009, with a supplemental urine test positive for methadone.
- An evidentiary hearing in Nov. 2009 found probation violation due to illegal drug use and DUI; he was sentenced to 2.5 to 7 years, stand committed, with 598 days pretrial credit, and license suspended for 3 years upon release.
- The defendant appealed asserting the trial court lacked statutory authority to revoke his license as a probation-violation sanction.
- The Supreme Court held that license revocation for probation violation exceeded statutory authority and was not plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to revoke license for probation violation | State: RSA 263:56-b IV permits license revocation for drug offenses; RSA 651:1 II provides exceptions via civil penalties. | Pandelena: no statutory authority to revoke license for probation violation; mittimus cannot confer such power. | License revocation for probation violation lacks statutory authorization; error. |
| Plainness of the error | State argues error was plain under existing authorities. | Pandelena contends the issue should be plain error given the coercive license sanction. | The error was not plain. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hancock, 156 N.H. 301 (2007) (probation cannot be punished by exceeding statutory maximums; only fine or imprisonment)
- State v. Buckingham, 121 N.H. 339 (1981) (license revocation authority requires statutory basis beyond RSA 651:1, II)
- State v. Matey, 153 N.H. 263 (2006) (plain error analysis and probation violation sanctions; later reaffirmed limitations)
- State v. Almodovar, 158 N.H. 548 (2009) (trial court sentencing authority is statutory)
- State v. White, 131 N.H. 555 (1989) (probation enforcement through prison or fine under statutory limits)
- State v. Ingerson, 130 N.H. 112 (1987) (limitations on indefinite sentences; relevant to probation sanctioning)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain error standard in federal context)