Argued November 14, 2013.
Hillsborough-southern judicial district.
Michael A. Delaney, attorney general ( Elizabeth C. Woodcock, assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the State.
David M. Rothstein, deputy chief appellate defender, of Concord, on the brief and orally, for the defendant.
HICKS, J. DALIANIS, C.J., and CONBOY and BASSETT, JJ., concurred.
[166 N.H. 24] Hicks, J.
The defendant, Barion Perry, appeals an order of the Superior Court ( Nicolosi, J.) imposing a suspended sentence. He argues: (1) the trial court erred in imposing the sentence based on conduct that occurred before he was released from custody; and (2) imposition of the sentence violated due process. We affirm.
The record supports the following facts. On February 18, 2010, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of receiving stolen property (docket number 09-S-1245), see RSA 637:7, and one count of stalking (docket number 09-S-1246), see RSA 633:3-a. At that time, the defendant was serving a sentence of three to ten years on unrelated burglary and theft charges (docket numbers 07-S-231 and 232). During the plea and sentencing hearing, the court ( Lynn, C.J.) engaged in a colloquy with the defendant. The pertinent portions of the colloquy are as follows:
THE COURT: ... As I understand it, the plea agreement here calls for you to receive suspended sentences, right?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Here's what I want to make sure you understand. Let's suppose that I accept this agreement and I impose the suspended sentences, okay?
But, you know, sometime after you're released from jail, but while you're still subject to the suspended sentences, you get into some further trouble, at that point the State could ask ...