CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as Chuuk v. Rimmuo, 21 FSM R. 19(Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2016)
CHUUK STATE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RINEI RIMUO,
Defendant.
CSSC CRIMINAL CASE NO. 076-2014
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REVOCATION
Jayson Robert
Associate Justice
Decided: November 23, 2016
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff: Stanley Michael
Sherry-Jane Edmund (supervisor)
State Prosecutor
Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 1050
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
For the Defendant: Bethwell O'Sonis, Esq.
Office of the Public Defender
P.O. Box 754
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
* * * *
A court's jurisdiction over probationary matters lasts only as long as the probationary term. Chuuk v. Rimuo, 21 FSM R. 19, 21 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2016).
A court's jurisdiction ends once the defendant has satisfied the sentence that had been imposed. Chuuk v. Rimuo, 21 FSM R. 19, 21 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2016).
When no action has been taken against a defendant during the term of probation, no action can be initiated after the probationary period's expiration. The "triggering event" that would properly initiate proceedings and grant a court jurisdiction after the probationary period's conclusion is generally considered to be more formal revocation proceedings such as issuing, before the probation's expiration, a summons or an arrest warrant alleging a probation violation. Chuuk v. Rimuo, 21 FSM R. 19, 21 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2016).
When the defendant violated probation by not reporting to his probation officer for the last four months of his probation and by not paying the court-ordered $70 restitution to the victim, but the probation officer did not inform the Attorney General's Office of the probation violations until after the defendant's probationary term had already expired, and when the defendant was not summoned, which was the proper triggering procedure to grant this court jurisdiction, until over eleven months later, such delay in initiating the proper triggering event results in the court losing jurisdiction over the matter. It therefore cannot grant a revocation motion. Chuuk v. Rimuo, 21 FSM R. 19, 21 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2016).
Due to the state's lack of timeliness to issue a warrant or summons during the probationary term, this court lacks jurisdiction over a probation revocation matter. Chuuk v. Rimuo, 21 FSM R. 19, 21 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2016).
* * * *
JAYSON ROBERT, Associate Justice:
On October 21, 2014, this Court sentenced Defendant Rimuo to imprisonment for one year, with six months of that term served under the direction and custody of the Director of the Chuuk State Department of Public Safety and the remaining six months of that term served on suspension with probationary requirements, as per the modified terms of the plea agreement. Under the terms of that sentencing order, the Defendant's sentence would have terminated on October 22, 2015. No action was filed with this Court between October 21, 2014 and September 26, 2016, when this Court ordered the defendant to appear before the court to respond to allegations of probation violations. On October 21, 2016, the plaintiff, Chuuk State, filed a Motion for Revocation seeking to revoke the defendant's probation on the basis that he had not reported to his probation officer for the last four months of his probationary term and did not pay the ordered $70 restitution to the victim. The plaintiff also included an affidavit from Probation Officer Elias dated November 2, 2015. In its opposition to the plaintiff's
Motion for Revocation, the defendant has argued that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter as of October 22, 2015, when the defendant's probationary term came to an end. This Court DENIES the plaintiff's Motion for Revocation.
The present matter before this court is whether the court has jurisdiction over a probationary matter where the term of probation has expired.
A court's jurisdiction over probationary matters lasts only as long as the probationary term. In the matter of FSM v. Edward, that court found ample precedents that a court's jurisdiction ended once the defendant had satisfied the sentence that had been imposed. FSM v. Edward, 20 FSM R. 335 (Pon. 2016). The Edward court found that where no action had been taken against the defendant during the term of probation, no action could be initiated after the expiration of the probationary period. Id. at 338. The "triggering event" that would properly initiate proceedings and grant a court jurisdiction after the conclusion of the probationary period is generally considered to be more formal revocation proceedings such as issuing a summons or an arrest warrant. Id. at 339. This formal triggering event is supported by the United States Federal Code, which provides
The power of the court to revoke a sentence of probation for violation of a condition of probation and to impose another sentence, extends beyond the expiration of the term of probation for any period reasonably necessary for the adjudication of matters arising before its expiration if, prior to its expiration, a warrant or summons has been issued on the basis of an allegation of such a violation.
18 U.S.C. §3565(c). Therefore, a warrant or summons issued after the expiration of the term of violation is insufficient to grant a court jurisdiction over the matter.
In the matter at bar, this court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because there was no formal action initiated by the government during the probationary term. As mirrored by the FSM v. Edward matter, the defendant here committed probation violations by not reporting to his probation officer for the last four months of his probationary term, and did not pay the $70 restitution to the victim as ordered by the court. The probation officer did not inform the Attorney General's Office of the probation violations until November, 2015, at which point the defendant's probationary term had already expired. The defendant was not summoned until September 26, 2016, which would have been the proper triggering procedure to grant this court jurisdiction, if it had not been over eleven months late. However, such delay in initiating the proper triggering event has resulted in this court losing jurisdiction over the matter and therefore cannot grant the plaintiff's Motion for Revocation.
Due to the states lack of timeliness to issue a warrant or summons during the probationary term, this court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. Therefore this court DENIES plaintiff's Motion for Revocation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
* * * *