Appeals court hears argument on whether judge overstepped at probation‑violation disposition

Peter Brewer, representing Jonathan Arce, told the court that while the violation notice referenced drug use and discharge from a treatment program, the judge's dispositional remarks went further and punished conduct the defendant had not admitted. Brewer urged that the judge ventured beyond the stipulated facts by relying on allegations about ordering drugs for others at the treatment facility when the defendant had not stipulated to those particulars.

"The judge used it and applied it and violated due process by punishing him for that," Brewer said, citing a Rule 23 case he said supported his position.

Mallory Scurll, for the Commonwealth, replied that the judge acted within the broad discretion the law affords in disposition after a violation finding, that the defendant had been on notice of the charges and the factual underpinnings, and that significant evidence supported the sentence within statutory limits.

The panel probed whether the judge's comments improperly conflated violation proof with dispositional purpose and whether the record supports treating the judge's sentencing as an exercise of discretion within legal bounds. Portions of the argument turned on prior case law (Eldred/Eldridge, Santana) and the distinction between revocation, reprobation and termination of probation.

The court took the arguments under advisement and did not announce a decision from the bench.