(a) The court shall not revoke probation without a proceeding conducted in open court.
The procedure of such hearing shall include:
(1) the probationer has violated one or more conditions of probation;
(2) aprior written notice to the probationer stating the alleged violation with which
he or she is charged and that he or she has a right to legal counsel at the hearing;
(3) the right to legal counsel if requested by the probationer to be assigned by the court
in the same manner as in criminal cases;
(4) establishment of the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence by the State,
if the probationer contests the allegation in open court;
(5) the maintenance of a record of the proceeding, which shall be preserved in such a
manner that it can be transcribed as needed.
(b) An order revoking probation shall be appealable in the same manner as would be applicable
to his or her original conviction.
(c) The State shall have the right to be represented by counsel in any revocation hearing. (Added 1971, No. 199 (Adj. Sess.), § 20; amended 1973, No. 48, § 3.)
State v. Leggett, 709 A.2d 491 (Vt. 1998). · cites it 4דThere was more than a preponderance of admissible evidence to support the trial court's determination that H.”
State v. Therrien, 442 A.2d 1299 (Vt. 1982). “§ 7042 reconsideration hearing brought within ninety days of the original sentencing; third, at the probation revocation hearing from which the defendant may also appeal, 28 V.S.A. § 302. We do not feel that the legislature intended or fairness requires that the defendant be…”
State v. Scott Provost, 2014 VT 86A (Vt. 2015). “5 28 V.S.A. § 302(a)(4). If a violation is established, the court may continue probation, alter the conditions of probation, or revoke probation and impose the underlying sentence.”
State v. Bushey, 543 A.2d 1327 (Vt. 1988). “28 V.S.A. § 302(a)(4). A “violation [of a condition of probation] or conviction shall be both a necessary and a sufficient ground for the revocation of probation.”
State v. Millard, 543 A.2d 700 (Vt. 1988). “Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence presented at the revocation hearing was insufficient to show that he had violated the conditions of his probation, and that the trial court’s findings failed to show the necessity of incarceration.”
State v. Amidon, 2010 VT 46 (Vt. 2010). “When he learned he was going to be arrested for violating probation, defendant asked an officer to tell his mother that he had purchased roses for Bonnie, which were waiting for her in the backseat of the car.”
State v. Cavett, 199 Vt. 546 (Vt. 2015). “Here, although the termination of defendant’s participation in VTPSA was a programming decision with consequences in the correctional system, the court was not reviewing that decision or its internal consequences. Rather, the court was deciding whether to revoke defendant’s…”
State v. Cavett, 2015 VT 91 (Vt. 2015). “See 28 V.S.A. § 302 (court shall not revoke probation without hearing in open court); id.”
State v. Jonathan C. Richards, 2021 VT 40 (Vt. 2021). “The practical effect of this condition is to allow for an expedited violation-of-probation hearing before a judge under the preponderance of the evidence standard, rather than before a jury under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.”
State v. Austin R. Burnett, 2022 VT 30 (Vt. 2022). “2d 700, 701 (1988); 28 V.S.A. § 302(a)(4). The State must demonstrate “that there has been a violation of the express conditions of probation, or of a condition so clearly implied that a probationer, in fairness, can be said to have notice of it.”
Rivard v. State (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026). “28 V.S.A. § 302(c). Thus, even if the Department could have had some role in requesting that the court schedule a merits hearing such a request would have been made by the State’s Attorney’s Office not Department personnel.”
State v. Sylvester, 2007 VT 125 (Vt. 2007). “Defendant next contends that his due-process rights under the federal and state constitutions were violated when the trial court found that he had violated probation by a preponderance of the evidence rather than by clear and convincing evidence.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 302(a)(4) — 8 cases
State v. Leggett, 709 A.2d 491 (Vt. 1998). “There was more than a preponderance of admissible evidence to support the trial court's determination that H.”
State v. Scott Provost, 2014 VT 86A (Vt. 2015). “5 28 V.S.A. § 302(a)(4). If a violation is established, the court may continue probation, alter the conditions of probation, or revoke probation and impose the underlying sentence.”
State v. Bushey, 543 A.2d 1327 (Vt. 1988). “28 V.S.A. § 302(a)(4). A “violation [of a condition of probation] or conviction shall be both a necessary and a sufficient ground for the revocation of probation.”
State v. Millard, 543 A.2d 700 (Vt. 1988). “Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence presented at the revocation hearing was insufficient to show that he had violated the conditions of his probation, and that the trial court’s findings failed to show the necessity of incarceration.”
State v. Amidon, 2010 VT 46 (Vt. 2010). “When he learned he was going to be arrested for violating probation, defendant asked an officer to tell his mother that he had purchased roses for Bonnie, which were waiting for her in the backseat of the car.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 302(c) — 1 case
Rivard v. State (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026). “28 V.S.A. § 302(c). Thus, even if the Department could have had some role in requesting that the court schedule a merits hearing such a request would have been made by the State’s Attorney’s Office not Department personnel.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.