Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Hampshire courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. LeCouffegreen1 sentence2011“The sentencing order must clearly communicate to the defendant the exact nature of the sentence.” Id. (quotation omitted). “[U]nless the terms of a sentence at the time it is imposed specifically allow augmentation at a later date, the court may not increase a defendant’s penalty at a probation revocation hearing or a hearing on whether to impose a deferred or suspended sentence.” State v. LeCouffe, 152 N.H. 148, 152 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
State v. DeLombagreen1 sentence2009Id. at 1042 ; McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980); People v. Rocha, 272 N.W.2d 699, 706-07 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978); State v. DeLomba, 370 A.2d 1273, 1275-77 (R.I. 1977); State v. Begins, 514 A.2d 719, 721-23 (Vt. 1986); State v. Evans, 252 N.W.2d 664, 668-69 (Wis. 1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Evansgreen1 sentence2009Id. at 1042 ; McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980); People v. Rocha, 272 N.W.2d 699, 706-07 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978); State v. DeLomba, 370 A.2d 1273, 1275-77 (R.I. 1977); State v. Begins, 514 A.2d 719, 721-23 (Vt. 1986); State v. Evans, 252 N.W.2d 664, 668-69 (Wis. 1977). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rochagreen1 sentence2009Id. at 1042 ; McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980); People v. Rocha, 272 N.W.2d 699, 706-07 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978); State v. DeLomba, 370 A.2d 1273, 1275-77 (R.I. 1977); State v. Begins, 514 A.2d 719, 721-23 (Vt. 1986); State v. Evans, 252 N.W.2d 664, 668-69 (Wis. 1977). | 1 | 1 |
McCracken v. Coreygreen1 sentence2009Id. at 1042 ; McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980); People v. Rocha, 272 N.W.2d 699, 706-07 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978); State v. DeLomba, 370 A.2d 1273, 1275-77 (R.I. 1977); State v. Begins, 514 A.2d 719, 721-23 (Vt. 1986); State v. Evans, 252 N.W.2d 664, 668-69 (Wis. 1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Beginsgreen1 sentence2009Id. at 1042 ; McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980); People v. Rocha, 272 N.W.2d 699, 706-07 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978); State v. DeLomba, 370 A.2d 1273, 1275-77 (R.I. 1977); State v. Begins, 514 A.2d 719, 721-23 (Vt. 1986); State v. Evans, 252 N.W.2d 664, 668-69 (Wis. 1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hainesgreen2 sentences2000See generally Haines, 142 N.H. 692 , 709 A.2d 762 (discussing standards in RSA 517:13). 2000See generally Haines, 142 N.H. 692 , 709 A.2d 762 (discussing standards in RSA 517:13). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Timmonsgreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., State v. Huot, 136 N.H. 96, 99-101 , 612 A.2d 362, 364 (1992) (where original sentencing order was clear in making suspended sentences on multiple charges concurrent, the trial court, in revoking probation, has no authority to alter the sentence by imposing the sentences consecutively rather than concurrently); State v. Timmons, 130 N.H. 831, 836 , 547 A.2d 312, 315 (1988) (where sentencing .order was plain that the defendant was given two years to complete an alcohol rehabilitation program, the trial court erred in finding, prior to the expiration of the two-year window, that the d 1996See, e.g., State v. Huot, 136 N.H. 96, 99-101 , 612 A.2d 362, 364 (1992) (where original sentencing order was clear in making suspended sentences on multiple charges concurrent, the trial court, in revoking probation, has no authority to alter the sentence by imposing the sentences consecutively rather than concurrently); State v. Timmons, 130 N.H. 831, 836 , 547 A.2d 312, 315 (1988) (where sentencing .order was plain that the defendant was given two years to complete an alcohol rehabilitation program, the trial court erred in finding, prior to the expiration of the two-year window, that the d | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huotgreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., State v. Huot, 136 N.H. 96, 99-101 , 612 A.2d 362, 364 (1992) (where original sentencing order was clear in making suspended sentences on multiple charges concurrent, the trial court, in revoking probation, has no authority to alter the sentence by imposing the sentences consecutively rather than concurrently); State v. Timmons, 130 N.H. 831, 836 , 547 A.2d 312, 315 (1988) (where sentencing .order was plain that the defendant was given two years to complete an alcohol rehabilitation program, the trial court erred in finding, prior to the expiration of the two-year window, that the d 1996See, e.g., State v. Huot, 136 N.H. 96, 99-101 , 612 A.2d 362, 364 (1992) (where original sentencing order was clear in making suspended sentences on multiple charges concurrent, the trial court, in revoking probation, has no authority to alter the sentence by imposing the sentences consecutively rather than concurrently); State v. Timmons, 130 N.H. 831, 836 , 547 A.2d 312, 315 (1988) (where sentencing .order was plain that the defendant was given two years to complete an alcohol rehabilitation program, the trial court erred in finding, prior to the expiration of the two-year window, that the d | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Hampshire. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Van Winkle
green
1 sentence2011“The sentencing order must clearly communicate to the defendant the exact nature of the sentence.” Id. (quotation omitted). “[U]nless the terms of a sentence at the time it is imposed specifically allow augmentation at a later date, the court may not increase a defendant’s penalty at a probation revocation hearing or a hearing on whether to impose a deferred or suspended sentence.” State v. LeCouffe, 152 N.H. 148, 152 (2005). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Staley v. State
green
2 sentences2011On appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal noted that, as a probationer, the defendant was entitled to minimal due process, including “a probation revocation hearing if the probationer disputes the charges.” Id. 2011It found that the procedure employed in the defendant’s case “failed to satisfy the statutory and constitutional requirements.” Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Coleman
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 1042 ; McCracken v. Corey, 612 P.2d 990, 997-98 (Alaska 1980); People v. Rocha, 272 N.W.2d 699, 706-07 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978); State v. DeLomba, 370 A.2d 1273, 1275-77 (R.I. 1977); State v. Begins, 514 A.2d 719, 721-23 (Vt. 1986); State v. Evans, 252 N.W.2d 664, 668-69 (Wis. 1977). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Wahlert
green
1 sentence2009For example, in Wahlert , the Iowa Supreme Court held that “the disposition of a criminal prosecution prior to a probation revocation hearing is not constitutionally mandated and a continuance in the present case was not constitutionally necessary.” Wahlert, 379 N.W.2d at 13 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Burgess
green
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Rau
green
2 sentences1996See Huot, 136 N.H. at 99-101 , 612 A.2d at 364 ; Ingerson, 130 N.H. at 114 , 536 A.2d at 162 ; Rau, 129 N.H. at 131-32 , 523 A.2d at 102 . 1996See Huot, 136 N.H. at 99-101 , 612 A.2d at 364 ; Ingerson, 130 N.H. at 114 , 536 A.2d at 162 ; Rau, 129 N.H. at 131-32 , 523 A.2d at 102 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Ingerson
green
2 sentences1996See Huot, 136 N.H. at 99-101 , 612 A.2d at 364 ; Ingerson, 130 N.H. at 114 , 536 A.2d at 162 ; Rau, 129 N.H. at 131-32 , 523 A.2d at 102 . 1996See Huot, 136 N.H. at 99-101 , 612 A.2d at 364 ; Ingerson, 130 N.H. at 114 , 536 A.2d at 162 ; Rau, 129 N.H. at 131-32 , 523 A.2d at 102 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Stapleford v. Perrin
green
2 sentences1996Because the original sentence did not include such a term, and because the court did not retain discretion to add probation at a later date, see Stapleford, 122 N.H. at 1087 , 453 A.2d at 1306 , the court had no more authority to add probation at Burgess’ deferred sentence hearing than the Huot court had to augment that defendant’s sentence at the probation revocation hearing. 1996Because the original sentence did not include such a term, and because the court did not retain discretion to add probation at a later date, see Stapleford, 122 N.H. at 1087 , 453 A.2d at 1306 , the court had no more authority to add probation at Burgess’ deferred sentence hearing than the Huot court had to augment that defendant’s sentence at the probation revocation hearing. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.