[B]ENNINGTON — A woman who in 2014 triggered an Amber Alert by taking her son from foster care recently prevailed in a Vermont Supreme Court decision concerning her right to seek bail after alleged probation violations.
Patricia Kane, 52, had pleaded guilty to a charge of custodial interference in 2014 and was sentenced to two to five years in prison, with all but one year suspended. In August this year, her probation officer said she had violated four of her conditions of release, and she was ordered held without bail pending a probation revocation hearing.
The Superior Court judge’s ruling in August that Kane, as a probationer, could be ordered held without bail was appealed to a single justice of the Supreme Court — in this case, Chief Justice Paul Reiber — who upheld the lower court ruling in September.
However, in its decision in late November, the full court overturned the prior rulings — based in part on changes in Vermont law enacted in 2010. The vote was 4 to 1, with Reiber dissenting.
Kane was found to meet the revised statutory criteria for having a presumed right to seek conditions of release, according to the court.
Her attorney in the appeal, Charles S. Martin, of Martin & Associates in Barre, said she also has a second appeal before the Supreme Court concerning an alleged probation violation, with a decision pending. That appeal focuses on whether her probationary situation and nonviolent status warranted requiring wearing a GPS monitoring device at all times.
The attorney said his firm has a contract with the defender general’s office to represent clients when needed, and the firm was assigned to represent Kane. Martin said the initial court rulings on the issue of being held without bail were based on the fact the case involved an alleged probation violation, and therefore a probationer did not have an assumed right under state law to seek bail or other conditions of release.
Martin said he noticed that Kane apparently met new criteria for seeking bail or other conditions of release under the revised law.
The decision also notes that a probationer applying for conditions of release must have been convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor or felony, and the probation violation could not constitute a new crime. Kane fit those criteria, the court determined.
The state alleged in August that she had violated four conditions of her probation: to meet with her probation officer whenever told; notify her probation officer of an address change within two days of moving; obey a curfew; and abide by electronic monitoring.
The Supreme Court’s decision also notes that in revising the statutes, the Legislature intended to address the issue of the large number of people incarcerated in Vermont, and that it directed agencies and the court to “work cooperatively to reduce, to the extent possible, the average daily number of incarcerated detainees.”
Probation would, therefore, become the default standard for people convicted of nonviolent offenses and accused of probation violations while meeting the other criteria listed.
The 2010 statute revisions also define “nonviolent felony” as not being on a cited list of 28 types of crimes that are violent or sexual in nature, or crimes involving “an offense involving sexual exploitation of children.”
Kane’s probation officer also wrote that she had made statements that raised concern she might harm herself if released, citing that as another reason for asking that Kane be held. In its decision, the Supreme Court wrote that such information “may be taken into consideration in determining which conditions to impose.”
Kane, who is not currently in custody, also faces other court issues, including a charge of disturbing the peace through repeated telephone calls, and a felony count of issuing false tokens exceeding $900 for allegedly writing a bad check to a Manchester business in 2015.
She is due back in Bennington Superior Court on Jan. 19.
Kane, who has represented herself in some of her court appearances, also has been represented by other attorneys at times since her arrest in 2014. She has been active in filing or having filed on her behalf scores of motions.
Martin said Kane also is seeking to withdraw her guilty plea in the custodial interference case.
Bennington County State’s Attorney Erica Marthage cited the several pending cases and court-related issues involving Kane in declining to comment on the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Kane initially lost custody of her son after the death of her husband in France, where the family had lived for many years, a family member told the Bennington Banner in 2014.
