OAG says defendant misinterprets the word ‘report’

The Office of the Attorney General has filed an opposition to a motion filed by the Office of the Public Defender that questioned the Superior Court’s jurisdiction over an ex-convict whose term of probation had already expired.

Assistant attorney general Darren Robinson asserted that although the court ordered defendant Raymond Saka to report to the Office of Adult Probation on Oct. 13, 2010, his probationary period did not begin until his release from jail on Nov. 9, 2010.

Therefore, Robinson pointed out, Saka’s request to dismiss the government’s motion to revoke the defendant’s probation should be denied.

According to court records, on Oct. 13, 2010, Saka pleaded guilty to assault and battery. The judge ordered the defendant to, among other things, report to the Office of Adult Probation that same day (Oct. 13).

The court’s commitment order placed the defendant on supervised probation for one year.

The court’s commitment order provided that Saka was sentenced to six months in jail, all suspended except for 15 days, with credit for one day time served.

The order required Saka to report to the Department of Corrections on Oct. 25, 2010. The order stated that the defendant was to be released on Nov. 9, 2010.

Saka served 14 days in custody and was released from DOC on Nov. 9, 2010.

On Oct. 26, 2011, a probation officer made an oral motion to revoke Saka’s probation. The OAG then filed a notice of revocation hearing on Dec. 5, 2011.

Assistant public defender Daniel T. Guidotti, counsel for Saka, in a motion to dismiss questioned the court’s jurisdiction on expired probation matter.

Guidotti said the Office of Adult Probation (OAP) believed that Saka’s probation was to expire on Nov. 9, 2011.

Guidotti said this error occurred because Saka was incarcerated for 14 days, from Oct. 25 to Nov. 9.

“For whatever reason, the (OAP) used Mr. Saka’s release date from the Department of Corrections to calculate the expiration date of the probationary period,” Guidotti said.

Saka contended that, consistent with the court’s order, his probation began on Oct. 13, 2011, regardless whether he appeared at the OAP on Oct. 13.

In the government’s opposition, Robinson said the court’s order did not specify when probation was to begin, only when Saka was to report to the Office of Adult Probation.

Robinson said Saka mistakenly interprets the word report to mean that probation began at this time.

“When defendants report to the Office of Adult Probation, they typically go through probation orientation,” the prosecutor pointed out.

Robinson said orientation does not always coincide with the start of probation and there are no magic words at orientation that start probation.

Robinson said Saka reported to the Office of Adult Probation on Oct. 15, 2010, where he went through orientation.

The prosecutor said since nothing in the court’s order specifically indicates when probation was supposed to begin, it only makes sense that probation did not begin until Saka’s release from DOC on Nov. 9, 2010.