UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District Trial Court No. 3AN-11-00582 CR, Anchorage, Michael Corey, Judge.
Appearances: Justin N. Gillette, Assistant Public Defender, and Samantha Cherot, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.
Matthew Heibel, Assistant District Attorney, Anchorage, and Clyde Sniffen Jr., Acting Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Wollenberg, Harbison, and Terrell, Judges.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION
William Bernard Chatman appeals the revocation of his probation. Chatman's probation was revoked for three reasons: he committed a new crime; he failed to meaningfully engage in substance abuse treatment; and he failed to meaningfully engage in sex offender treatment. On appeal, Chatman challenges the superior court's revocation of his probation on the latter two grounds, arguing that he had insufficient notice that his conduct would constitute a violation. We find this contention to be without merit.
Chatman pleaded guilty to second-degree sexual assault in April 2012. He was first released from custody in January 2015. Over the course of the next two years, Chatman's probation was revoked five times, primarily because of his ongoing problems with drugs and alcohol.
The current petition to revoke probation arose after Chatman was released from custody on December 7, 2017. Chatman and his probation officer met the next week and discussed Chatman's substance abuse treatment requirement, and the probation officer explained that to re-enroll in sex offender treatment he would have to show significant progress in substance abuse treatment. On December 21, Chatman discussed staying sober with his probation officer, but two weeks later Chatman reported to his probation officer that he had consumed methamphetamine and marijuana.
Chatman's probation officer testified that he told Chatman on January 16 that Chatman needed to immediately report to the Gospel Rescue Mission to submit an application for substance abuse treatment and that failing to submit an application would be a violation of Chatman's conditions of probation. Two days later, the probation officer received a call from the Mission and learned that Chatman had submitted his application. The probation officer spoke with Chatman later that month and told him that he needed to provide a clean urinalysis test to enter into substance abuse treatment with the Mission. The probation officer also reminded Chatman that he needed to complete substance abuse treatment in order to enter sex offender treatment.
Chatman was then accepted into the Gospel Rescue Mission, but failed to show up as required, and the Mission rescinded the acceptance.
Chatman's probation officer then told Chatman that he would give him one last chance. The probation officer provided Chatman with a list of Department of Corrections-approved treatment providers and directed him to schedule an assessment prior to their meeting the following week. The probation officer told Chatman that if he did not do this, he would be in violation of his substance abuse condition and, consequently, his sex offender treatment condition.
Chatman signed up for a substance abuse assessment with the Volunteers of America. The assessment was scheduled for February 3, but he did not show up. Chatman then re-scheduled for February 7. He showed up for this assessment, but was turned away because he could not pay. An employee at Volunteers of America testified that Chatman would have been told when he scheduled the first appointment that he would be required to pay or to have some form of insurance. Chatman again rescheduled, this time for February 21. But prior to that date, he was arrested for a domestic violence assault and remanded to custody.
Given these facts, it is clear that Chatman was repeatedly told that his failure to meaningfully engage in substance abuse treatment would place him in violation of both his substance abuse treatment requirement and his sex offender treatment requirement. Chatman's probation officer consistently provided him specific directions as to what he needed to do to be in compliance with his probation conditions, and he consistently failed to comply with those directions. We therefore find no merit to Chatman's contention that he had insufficient notice that his conduct would constitute a violation of his conditions of probation.
Chatman also argues that even if the court correctly found that he had violated his probation, the court erred in finding good cause to revoke his probation. This contention is similarly without merit. This was Chatman's sixth petition to revoke probation in less than three years. Over the two-month period from December 2017 to February 2018, he continued to use illegal substances, failed to obtain substance abuse treatment, and ultimately committed a new crime. The court did not err in finding good cause to revoke Chatman's probation.
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.