Browse Previous PageTable of ContentsBrowse Next Page


Case Guidelines for Conduct of Criminal Proceedings Table of Contents

Case Guidelines For Conduct Of Criminal Proceedings

[ Editor's NoteThese Guidelines have not been updated since 1984.]

PART V. SENTENCES AND POST - CONVICTION REMEDIES


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).


Browse Previous Page
Table of ContentsBrowse Next Page


Case Guidelines for Conduct of Criminal Proceedings Table of Contents