|
State v. Nolan
Download as PDF
Back to Opinions Page
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2000 ME 165
Docket: Yor-00-157
Submitted
on Briefs: September 14, 2000
Decided: October 2, 2000
Panel:WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, SAUFLEY, ALEXANDER, and CALKINS,
JJ.
STATE OF MAINE
v.
JASON NOLAN
RUDMAN, J.
[¶1] Pursuant to M.R. Crim. P. 40A, Jason Nolan appeals from a
sentence imposed by the Superior Court (York County, Crowley, J.) after his
conviction of, inter alia, an assault on a police officer. The sentence includes
a special condition of probation prohibiting him from entering the Towns of
Sanford and Wells. Nolan contends that the condition barring him from
Sanford is overly broad because it is not reasonably related to his
rehabilitation or to public safety or security. Leave to appeal was granted by
the Sentence Review Panel. See 15 M.R.S.A. § 2152 (1999). We review for
abuse of discretion and finding none, we affirm.
I.
[¶2] Jason Nolan was twenty-years-old when he assaulted Sanford
Police Officer Gilman. Nolan has essentially lived on his own since the age of
thirteen. Nolan's mother is believed to have died in 1995 and Nolan has no
recollection of ever living with his father or having contact with him. While
incarcerated for the assault of Gilman, Nolan commenced a relationship with
his father, who lives and works in Sanford. Nolan's father has offered to
employ his son and to assist him in rehabilitating his life upon his release
from prison.
[¶3] Nolan has a long history of involvement with the courts. As an
adult, he has been convicted of driving without a license; criminal trespass;
refusing to submit to arrest; failing to stop for a police officer; and assault.
Prior to the instant charges, Nolan was released on bail for pending charges
of assault and theft. Nolan's adult offenses have occurred predominantly in
Sanford and the immediate area.
[¶4] On the night of April 27, 1999, after Nolan had been drinking at
a friend's house, Gilman detained Nolan for possession of liquor by a minor.
Prior to reaching Gilman's cruiser, Nolan attempted to run away, but Gilman
tackled him. An eyewitness saw Nolan get to his feet quickly, seize Gilman's
flashlight, and strike Gilman on the back of the head with the flashlight.
Nolan then ran from the scene, but was arrested several hours later.
[¶5] Gilman sustained a fractured skull, subdural hematoma, and
contusions from the flashlight striking the back of his head. Gilman has
permanent damage to his sense of smell and taste, and will likely
experience bouts of vertigo throughout his life. Gilman has resumed full-
time employment with the Sanford Police.
[¶6] Nolan was indicted on five counts following his arrest: (1)
elevated aggravated assault, Class A; (2) assault on a police officer, Class C;
(3) violation of condition of release, Class E; (4) attempted murder, Class A;
and (5) aggravated assault, Class B. Nolan pleaded guilty to assault on a
police officer, violation of condition of release, and aggravated assault,
Counts 2, 3, and 5, respectively. Counts 1 and 4 were dismissed by the
state.
[¶7] Nolan was sentenced to ten years, six months imprisonment
with all but six years suspended and five years of probation. Special
conditions of probation were imposed by the Superior Court, which included
a blanket prohibition on Nolan entering the Towns of Sanford and Wells.{1}
II.
[¶8] Nolan asserts that prohibiting his entrance into Sanford and
Wells is an overly broad condition that is not reasonably related to his
rehabilitation or to public safety or security. The state contends that Nolan's
past criminal activities are almost entirely centered in Sanford; that he has
not complied with past conditions of release; and that for these reasons,
Nolan's rehabilitation and the safety of Gilman and his family require a
blanket prohibition on Nolan entering the Town of Sanford. We review
conditions of probation imposed by the Superior Court for abuse of
discretion. State v. Coreau, 651 A.2d 319, 320 (Me. 1994); See also 15
M.R.S.A. § 2155 (Supp. 1999).
[¶9] A court's power to impose conditions of probation is governed by
17-A M.R.S.A. § 1204 (1983 & Supp. 1999).{2} Probation is a device designed
to assist individuals in reintegrating into society, and may be premised on
reasonable conditions that are tailored to a particular probationer's needs.
State v. Smith, 573 A.2d 384, 386 (Me. 1990). The sentencing court may
impose restrictions on the probationer's liberty that furthers the
rehabilitation process by prohibiting conduct deemed to impede the
reintegration of the probationer into normal society. Coreau, 651 A.2d at
321. Probation conditions must, however, (1) be reasonably related to the
crimes for which the probationer has been convicted; (2) further the
rehabilitation process by reducing the risk of the probationer committing
similar crimes again; or (3) protect the public safety. Id.
[¶10] The Sentencing Transcript reflects an extensive discussion of
the conditions of Nolan's probation. The State sought a condition that Nolan
be prohibited from entering the Towns of Wells and Sanford except for
travel through those towns on the turnpike. The trial court said,
And I think at this time that that is an appropriate condition to
impose upon the defendant. Sanford has not been a place where
the defendant has behaved himself or where it appears that
there is any constructive reason for him to be there. His contact
with the town of Sanford since well before he became an adult
has been conduct that is mired in the criminal justice system,
both in the juvenile and the adult system. And, therefore, I
don't think that Sanford is a place for him. The relationship
that he's beginning to establish with his father it seems to me
can be carried on elsewhere, and there is an ease of
enforcement that accompanies a blanket prohibition of his
presence in either of those towns that ought to be of some
comfort to the Gilman family.
[¶11] To the extent that Nolan has a valid reason to enter the Towns
of Sanford and Wells after his period of incarceration and he can
demonstrate that the court's concerns about his presence in Sanford can be
minimized, he may at that time seek a modification in the conditions of his
probation. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1202(2). Under the circumstances of this case,
we cannot conclude that the trial court exceeded the bounds of its
discretion when it banished Nolan from Sanford during the five-year
probationary period.
The entry is:
Sentence affirmed.
Attorneys for the State:
Michael Cantara, D.A.
David Gregory, Esq.
Office of District Attorney
York County Courthouse
45 Kennebunk Rd.
P.O. Box 399
Alfred, Maine 04002
Attorney for the defendant:
Joel Vincent, Esq.
Vincent & Kantz
80 Exchange St.
Portland, Maine 04101
FOOTNOTES******************************** {1} . The Special Conditions of
Probation include: 1. Refrain from possession and use of any unlawful drugs
and the possession or use of intoxicating liquor; 2. Not own, possess or
use any firearm or dangerous weapons; 3. Submit to random search and testing
for alcohol, drugs, firearms, dangerous weapons upon reasonable suspicion
of use or possession 4. Maintain employment; 5. Other: a. Not to enter the
Town of Wells or the Town of Sanford unless on the Maine Turnpike; b. Have
no contact of any kind with Matthew Gilman and the family of said person.
{2} . Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1204 provides in pertinent part: 1. If
the court imposes a section 1152 sentencing alternative which includes a
period of probation, it shall attach such conditions of probation, as authorized
by this section, as it deems to be reasonable and appropriate to assist
the convicted person to lead a law-abiding life, provided that in every
case it shall be a condition of probation that the convicted person refrain
from criminal conduct. . . . 2-A. As a condition of probation, the court
in its sentence may require the convicted person: * * * F. To refrain from
frequenting specified places or consorting with specified person; G. To
refrain from possessing any firearms or other dangerous weapon; H. To remain
within the jurisdiction of the court, unless permission to leave temporarily
is granted in writing by the probation officer, and to notify the probation
officer of any change in his address or his employment; I. To refrain from
drug abuse and use or excessive use of alcohol; * * * K. To pay any monetary
penalty imposed by the court as part of the sentence; * * * M. To satisfy
any other conditions reasonably related to the rehabilitation of the convicted
person or the public safety or security. 3. The convicted person shall be
given an opportunity to address the court on the conditions which are proposed
to be attached and shall, after sentence, be given a written statement setting
forth the particular conditions on which he is released on probation. 17-A
M.R.S.A. § 1204.
|