This being the time fixed pursuant to order of the Court for review of the defendant’s probation terms in this case, Court noted the presence of counsel; Blaine Holman, Probation Officer; and the defendant.
Court reviewed for counsel the information it had read in preparation for this hearing.
Mr. Thompson argued the State’s concerns regarding the defendant being allowed to reside in the family home with his infant son or to have un-chaperoned contact with the child. Mr. Wullenwaber argued on behalf of the defendant, indicating that defendant did not object to the recommendations outlined by Valley Treatment Specialties. Mr. Thompson argued in rebuttal. Mr. Wullenwaber argued in surrebuttal. Mr. Thompson argued further in rebuttal.
Court directed statements to counsel regarding the need to modify the defendant’s terms and conditions of probation, touching upon the need for line of sight chaperone of any contact between the defendant and his son, its belief that Katie Sitler’s status as chaperone could be reinstated with additional training, that the defendant should avail himself of relapse prevention in meantime and should undergo and pass a polygraph examination. Court stated that it would modify the proposed consolidated terms of probation and allow counsel to review them prior to putting them into effect.
