Case Guidelines for Conduct of Criminal Proceedings Table of Contents
[ Editor's Note: These Guidelines have not been updated since 1984.]
SENTENCING AND DISPOSITION
STATUTORY LIMITS ON SENTENCES
1. Enhanced
sentence - Use of firearm
Constitutionality,
under the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution, of imposition of enhanced
sentences in cases involving use of firearms is discussed in Heald v. Perrin,
123 NH 468, 471 - 475 (1983).
2. Exceptional
cruelty or depravity
Requirements for
imposition of enhanced sentence upon basis of findings of exceptional cruelty or
depravity in the commission of an offense are prescribed in State v. Morehouse,
120 NH 738, 744 (1980).
See also State v. Woodard, 121 NH 970, 973 (1981).
3. Habitual
motor vehicle offenders
Mandatory nature
of penalties for habitual motor vehicle offenders prescribed by RSA 262-B:5, :8
(now RSA 262:21, :24) was established in State v. Dysart, 118 NH 743 (1978).
4. Driving
while intoxicated, first offense
The maximum permissible fine which may be imposed for driving while intoxicated, first offense, is prescribed in State v. Morrill, 123 NH 707, 713 (1983).
DISPOSITIONS WHICH MAY BE MADE BY THE COURT
1.
Post-conviction commitments generally
Procedural due
process guidelines and a standard of proof for the following circumstances, when
commitment may be the sanction, are prescribed in Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 NH
1083, 1088 - 1089 (1982): (1) parole violations; (2) violations of probation;
(3) when a case marked continued for sentencing is brought forward; (4) when a
suspended sentence is to be revoked; (5) when some condition set by the court
has not been met and incarceration is the proposed remedy; and (6) when the
defendant requests that a suspended sentence be continued and the state contests
the request.
2. Probation
revocation - Procedure
Procedural due
process requirements for probation revocation proceedings are delineated in
Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 NH 1083, 1088 (1982).
3. - Standard
of proof
The standard of
preponderance of the evidence as to appropriate standard of proof in probation
revocation proceedings was prescribed in Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 NH 1083, 1089
(1982).
4. - Review
A petition for
writ of certiorari in the superior court was prescribed as the appropriate mode
for review of probation revocation proceedings in State v. Brackett, 122 NH 716,
718 (1982).
INCREASE IN SENTENCE AFTER APPEAL
1.
Justification of increase
Requirement, when superior court, after trial de novo, substantially increases sentence imposed by lower court, that record reflect reasons for change was imposed in State v. Wheeler, 120 NH 496, 499 (1980). See also State v. Beaupre, 121 NH 1013, 1014 (1981); State v. Hamilton, 123 NH 686, 688 - 689 (1983); State v. Fournier, 123 NH 777, 778 (1983).
Case Guidelines for Conduct of Criminal Proceedings Table of Contents