Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 722 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 001A : OFFENDER REINTEGRATION

(Cite as: 28 V.S.A. § 722)

§ 722. Definitions

As used in this subchapter:

(1) “Absconding” means:

(A) the offender has not met supervision requirements, cannot be located with reasonable efforts, and has not made contact with Department staff within three days if convicted of a listed crime as defined in 13 V.S.A. § 5301(7) or seven days if convicted of an unlisted crime;

(B) the offender flees from Department staff or law enforcement; or

(C) the offender left the State without Department authorization.

(2) “Conditional reentry” means the process by which a sentenced offender is released into a community for supervision while participating in programs that assist the reintegration process. The offender’s ability to remain in the community under supervision is conditioned on the offender’s progress in reentry programs.

(3) “Listed crime” means any offense identified in 13 V.S.A. § 5301(7).

(4) “Technical violation” means a violation of conditions of furlough that does not constitute a new crime.

(5) “Total effective sentence” means the sentence imposed under 13 V.S.A. §§ 7031 and 7032 as calculated by the Department in the offender’s records.

(6) “Unlisted crime” means any offense that is a crime under Vermont law, but is not identified in 13 V.S.A. § 5301(7). (Added 2001, No. 61, § 89, eff. June 16, 2001; amended 2023, No. 78, § E.338.4, eff. July 1, 2023.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Fitzgerald v. Deml (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fitzgerald v. Deml (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). · cites it 3× “§ 5301(7) or seven days if convicted of an unlisted crime;” or (B) “the offender flees from Department staff or law enforcement;” or (C) “the offender left the State without Department authorization.”

white v. deml (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “Petitioner’s motion focuses on the portion of the Court’s decision concerning the ﬁndings that Petitioner had absconded, as that term is deﬁned in 28 V.S.A. § 722, during his furlough. Petitioner’s objection to this section is that while the Department’s initial notice of…”

Jones v. Deml (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). · cites it 2× “There is also no evidence to suggest an absconding charge under Section 724(d)(2)(C) as that term is defined under 28 V.S.A. § 722 (1). Instead, the sole questions on appeal are (1) whether the record supports the factual basis for the furlough revocation under the provisions of…”

Shatrau v. Deml (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). · cites it 2× “" 28 V.S.A. § 722(4). On the facts presented here, where Eric was criminally charged with simple assault, and a hearing officer has made a factual determination following a contested hearing that Eric engaged in the charged conduct, the court concludes, by a preponderance of…”

Branley v. Deml (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026). · cites it 2× “” 28 V.S.A. §§ 722(4); 724(c)(1), (d). Given the wording of Condition 1, the court must determine whether Branley violated it in a technical way (with conduct not constituting a new crime where the court would have subject 2 matter jurisdiction) or in a nontechnical way (with…”

In re Ladd (Vt. Super. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “” 28 V.S.A. § 722(2). The importance being that a “listed crime” would double the amount of time that he would have to spend in the program before he became eligible for its benefits.”

white v. deml (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “As defined under 28 V.S.A. § 722, absconding includes when an offender leaves the State without authorization by the Department of Corrections.”

hough v. deml (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “” 28 V.S.A. § 722(1). The distinction that Petitioner seeks to make is not supported.”

Collins v. Deml (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “” 28 V.S.A. § 722(4). 28 V.S.A. §724(d), on which the Commissioner relies, states: “It shall be abuse of the Department’s discretion to revoke furlough or interrupt furlough status for 90 days or longer for a technical violation, unless: .”

Woods v. Doc (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “Nor is there evidence to suggest an absconding charge under Section 724(d)(2)(C) as that term is defined under 28 V.S.A. § 722 (1). Instead, the sole question on appeal is whether the record supports the factual basis for the furlough revocation under the provisions of Section…”

Reason v. Doc (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “See 28 V.S.A. § 722(4). DOC’s response was therefore governed by the Policy Directive quoted above— specifically, Section F of that Directive.”

Martin v. Deml (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). “the last word on whether a violation is technical or nontechnical goes to the court.” Decision on Motion to Dismiss, Collins v.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 722(1) — 2 cases

Fitzgerald v. Deml (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). “§ 5301(7) or seven days if convicted of an unlisted crime;” or (B) “the offender flees from Department staff or law enforcement;” or (C) “the offender left the State without Department authorization.”

hough v. deml (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “” 28 V.S.A. § 722(1). The distinction that Petitioner seeks to make is not supported.”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 722(2) — 1 case

In re Ladd (Vt. Super. Ct. 2004). “” 28 V.S.A. § 722(2). The importance being that a “listed crime” would double the amount of time that he would have to spend in the program before he became eligible for its benefits.”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 722(3) — 1 case

In re Lafayette, 2006 VT 73 (Vt. 2006).

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 722(4) — 11 cases

Shatrau v. Deml (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). “" 28 V.S.A. § 722(4). On the facts presented here, where Eric was criminally charged with simple assault, and a hearing officer has made a factual determination following a contested hearing that Eric engaged in the charged conduct, the court concludes, by a preponderance of…”

Branley v. Deml (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026). “” 28 V.S.A. §§ 722(4); 724(c)(1), (d). Given the wording of Condition 1, the court must determine whether Branley violated it in a technical way (with conduct not constituting a new crime where the court would have subject 2 matter jurisdiction) or in a nontechnical way (with…”

Collins v. Deml (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “” 28 V.S.A. § 722(4). 28 V.S.A. §724(d), on which the Commissioner relies, states: “It shall be abuse of the Department’s discretion to revoke furlough or interrupt furlough status for 90 days or longer for a technical violation, unless: .”

Reason v. Doc (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “See 28 V.S.A. § 722(4). DOC’s response was therefore governed by the Policy Directive quoted above— specifically, Section F of that Directive.”

Martin v. Deml (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). “the last word on whether a violation is technical or nontechnical goes to the court.” Decision on Motion to Dismiss, Collins v.”

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.