Wiseman finds no vindictiveness in AGO’s motion to revoke probation

The Superior Court has junked the allegations of a defendant in a traffic case that the Attorney General’s Office’s vindictiveness was the motive in moving to revoke his probation.

Associate Judge David A. Wiseman said it is the government’s fault defendant Swingley P. Ringlen did not comply with the terms of his probation for over three years.

Wiseman said it is also not the government’s responsibility that Ringlen committed new offenses and was found guilty.

“A probationer must abide by the terms of their probation or face its revocation,” he said.

Ringlen, according to Wiseman, elected to violate and not comply with the terms of his probation over the course of three years.

The judge, however, stated he is troubled by the allegation that the AGO called the defendant’s place of employment.

“This is not a practice that this Court can approve of,” Wiseman emphasized.

Court records show that in May 2005, Ringlen was found guilty in a traffic case. One element of the defendant’s agreement is that he “obey all laws of the U.S. and the CNMI.”

In June 2008, the defendant was found guilty again in another traffic case.

During the intervening three years since Ringlen was found guilty in the 2005 traffic case, his probation had been extended due to noncompliance with the terms of his sentence.

During a review hearing for the 2005 traffic case on June 17, 2008, the AGO made the motion to revoke the probation.

At that time, Ringlen failed to pay the tuition for the class he was required to attend; failed to pay to Crime Stoppers; and failed to obey all laws clause in his probation.

Three days later, Ringlen’s counsel moved to continue the sentencing hearing in the 2007 traffic case on the grounds that the defendant would be starting a new job on the date of the hearing.

Wiseman heard the motion on that day. He did not grant the motion, but waived defendant’s appearance at the June 23, 2008 hearing.

Ringlen claims, that because he did not appear that the government then proceeded to contact his employer to verify his employment and start date of work and informed them of his sentencing hearing.

Assistant Public Defender Richard Miller, counsel for Ringlen, moved the court to deny the government’s motion to revoke probation on the grounds of prosecutorial vindictiveness in violation of his right to due process.

Miller cited the history of the probation in the 2005 traffic case, the procedural history of the 2007 traffic case involving new traffic charges, and a telephone call made on behalf of the AGO to Ringlen’s employer on June 23, 2008 regarding the two cases.

The AGO moved the court to revoke the probation based on noncompliance with the terms of his probation, namely non-payment of fees and a new law violation.

Ringlen asserted that the imposition of penalty is only being pursued because he has exercised a legal right.

In denying the motion, Wiseman pointed out that Ringlen fails to state what legal right he exercised that the AGO is allegedly reacting against.

In this case, Wiseman said, the defendant had numerous conversions of terms of probation and other considerations granted to him, most of which were at the urging of the prosecution.

“Such considerations, notwithstanding the defendant still had not shown diligence in complying with his probation terms,” he said.

The judge noted that the trial held on June 17, 2008 found the defendant guilty of a new charge unrelated to the probation alleged violations which were the subject of the government’s motion to revoke.

Wiseman agreed that prosecutorial vindictiveness should play no role in sentencing or prosecuting decisions.

However, in this case, he said, he finds no evidence of direct prosecutorial vindictiveness nor does the government’s action have the appearance of such.

Wiseman said he finds that AGO in fact worked continuously with Ringlen to assist him in complying with the terms of his probation including converting monetary fines into community service when he was able in order to alleviate the length of the probation.