Appellants Energize Vermont, Inc. and several individuals challenged the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB)’s affirmance of a permit issued by the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), approving an operational-phase stormwater management plan for appellee Green Mountain Power (GMP), with respect to the Kingdom Community Wind Project (Wind Project) on Lowell Mountain. Appellants raised a variety of challenges to the operational-phase permit, as well as other permits. On the appeal of the PSB order, the only issue this case presented to the Supreme Court was whether ANR complied with certain requirements of its own Vermont Stormwater Management Manual in granting the operational-phase permit. "Given the deferential standard of review, this straightforward plain meaning analysis needs little elaboration. Appellants have not met their burden." The Supreme Court found no clear and convincing error in ANR’s interpretation of the VSMM to allow an operational stormwater permit for the Wind Project’s level spreaders.View "In re ANR Permits in Lowell Mountain Wind Project" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs James and Elise Brault appealed a trial court's order granting judgment to defendant Jeanne Welch in a dispute over a right-of-way. The deed in question purported to convey "a right of way five feet wide leading to the lake along the existing block wall and southerly thereof." The court found this language unambiguous. Its plain meaning was that the right-of-way was located on the south side of the block wall. The court explained that the words "southerly thereof" modified the term right-of-way, and it found this interpretation strongly reinforced by the word "thereof," which meant "of that" or "concerning that." In arguing that the right-of-way had to be located on the northern side of the block wall, the Braults asserted that the words "southerly thereof" modified the words "the existing block wall," that is, the block wall was "southerly" of the right of way. The court found this to be an unreasonable interpretation of the deed language, and one that was inconsistent with how English was spoken and read. The Braults maintained that language in the original deed from the Griffiths to their son and daughter-in-law, "southerly thereof" must mean that the right-of-way was actually northerly of the block wall, primarily because a location northerly of the wall avoided any encroachment over the property line with the neighboring lot. The difficulty with the Braults' argument, the court explained, was that it violated the parol evidence rule. The court found that the question of the circumstances that might have produced the disputed provision in the deed also suffered from a shortage of evidence. Because the exact dimensions of the Welch lot were not established, the court found that it was not known whether the block wall marked the exact boundary on the south side of the lot. Nor could the court discern what circumstances led to the use of the word "southerly thereof" due to "a shortage of evidence." The court concluded that the Braults failed to meet their burden of proof, and it entered judgment in Welch's favor. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Braults maintained that the trial court should have found the description of the right-of-way to be ambiguous because it was a simple scrivener's error that misstated which side of the wall the easement is on. Finding no error, however, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Brault v. Welch" on Justia Law

The Judicial Conduct Board concluded that respondent Judge Ernest Balivet violated Canon 3(B)(8) of the Vermont Code of Judicial Conduct. The Supreme Court ordered review on its own motion. The alleged violation stemmed from the judge's handling of a grandfather's petition for guardianship of his granddaughter, and a subsequent request for termination of the parents' parental rights to the child. Before the hearing before the Judicial Conduct Board, the parties identified three disputed issues : (1)whether respondent failed to rule in a timely manner on the motion to revoke guardianship filed by the child’s parents; (2) whether respondent caused unnecessary delay in failing to schedule a hearing on the grandfather’s motion to terminate the father’s parental rights; and (3) whether respondent failed to respond in a timely manner to the order of remand from the family court. The Board’s sanction order recognized respondent’s responsibility for undue delay and endemic court management issues, but also acknowledged that the choices and actions of others played a significant role in the overall duration of the underlying case. It took into account respondent’s forthrightness in his dealings with the Board, his good intentions toward the parties, the reasonableness of his rulings in the underlying case, and his willingness to accept conditions intended to prevent this type of problem from recurring. The Supreme Court saw no reason to set aside the recommended conditions of respondent's sanctions. The Court did conclude, however, that characterization of respondent’s reprimand as “private,” rather than “public,” despite the conceded public character of the reprimand, was confusing and "cannot stand." Accordingly, the Court amended the sanction to characterize it as a “public reprimand.” In all other respects, the Court affirmed the Board’s sanction for respondent’s violation of Canon 3(B)(8). View "In re Balivet" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the trial court’s order revoking his probation. On appeal, he argued that he did not receive a “certificate explicitly setting forth” his probation conditions, as required by 28 V.S.A. 252(c), and that he did not have notice of the conditions. He also contended that the court did not make adequate factual findings regarding the credibility of defendant’s wife (the complainant), and that the court’s findings were erroneous. The Supreme Court agreed with defendant’s claim as to the failure to comply with the requirements of section 252(c) and reversed on that ground. View "Vermont v. Hemingway" on Justia Law

Husband appealed the trial court’s final divorce order. He argued the court erred by including certain items as part of the marital estate, awarding wife a disproportionate share of the marital estate, and failing to award him maintenance. Finding that the trial court abused its discretion with respect to "the Danby property," the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case so that the trial court could further consider the Danby property under the appropriate statutory provision. Given that the case was remanded, the Court did not reach husband’s final argument that the court’s distribution of marital property unfairly favored wife. View "Coburn v. Cook" on Justia Law

In a post-conviction relief (PCR) proceeding to vacate convictions based on a change of plea following a plea agreement, the court granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. The PCR court concluded that the change-of-plea colloquy was fundamentally flawed because the criminal court did not specifically ask petitioner if his plea was voluntary and free of undisclosed coercion or promises as required by Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The State appealed that decision, arguing that the colloquy substantially complied with Rule 11, the record demonstrated the plea was voluntary, and petitioner failed to allege actual prejudice. The Supreme Court agreed with the State, and reversed and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "In re Hemingway" on Justia Law

Mother and father were in a long-distance relationship for several years, throughout which mother lived in Vermont and father in Florida. In 2006, the parties had a child together. Although they never lived together as a family, parents continued taking regular trips with the child to visit each other until 2010, when they ended their relationship and mother filed a parentage action. Following the superior court’s amendment of a parent-child contact order, and in response to a child support order remanded to the magistrate by the superior court, appellant mother sought to overturn the superior court’s amendment and raised a number of issues with both the superior court and the magistrate’s treatment of father’s income for child support purposes. Upon review of the particular facts of this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s amended parent-child contact order and dismissed mother’s appeal of issues regarding the child support order. View "Patnode v. Urette" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in his underlying criminal case because his lawyers induced him to reject a plea bargain for a much lower sentence "by misrepresenting the potential maximum sentencing exposure petitioner was facing at trial." The superior court appointed a lawyer from the Prisoners’ Rights Office of the Defender General to represent petitioner in that court. The appointed public defender accepted representation and proceeded to represent petitioner throughout the trial court proceeding. The State moved to dismiss the petition under 13 V.S.A. 7134 because it was "a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner." The public defender answered that the case did not fit within the statute because the theory on which this petition was based had not been raised in earlier PCR petitions because it was not available at the time of the earlier petitions. The superior court granted summary judgment for the State. Shortly thereafter, the public defender filed a notice of appeal on petitioner’s behalf. In a letter to petitioner, the public defender said she initially thought there were no grounds for appeal, but then said "I changed my opinion and filed a notice of appeal for you." She added, however, that since filing the notice of appeal she discovered the Defender General’s office had a conflict of interest so the case had been assigned to conflict counsel. The first assigned conflict counsel withdrew because her firm had done a merits review for the Defender General on petitioner’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in connection with a prior PCR action. Counsel concluded that the firm’s prior negative merits review created a conflict of interest. The case was then assigned to attorney Michael Rose. Attorney Rose filed a motion for leave to withdraw, citing Vermont Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1 and case law. Because it became clear during the argument on that motion that the Defender General had not gone through the procedure it typically goes through before seeking leave to withdraw on the basis cited by Attorney Rose, the Supreme Court invited the Defender General to present its position on the motion. Upon further review, the Supreme Court granted Attorney Rose’s motion for leave to withdraw, and it did not appoint new publicly funded counsel. View "In re Bruyette." on Justia Law

Mark, the father of D.S., and Todd, the father of M.H., appealed the trial court’s order terminating their residual parental rights. The children shared the same mother. Both fathers had extensive criminal records and were incarcerated for most of their children’s lives. The Department for Children and Families (DCF) became involved with the family in December 2008 based on concerns of substance abuse, sexualized behavior, domestic violence, and neglect. In January 2012, the children were taken into custody pursuant to an emergency care order. At the time of the termination hearings, the court found that neither father played constructive roles in their children's lives. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the termination of parental rights. View "In re D.S., In re M.H." on Justia Law

Defendant Kyle Bolaski appealed his conviction for second-degree murder after a jury trial. He argued the trial court erred in: (1) not instructing the jury that the jury had to find an absence of passion or provocation; (2) excluding evidence of the victim’s mental health history in the months before the incident; and (3) dismissing a juror during the trial because she reported having followed the case during the time of the grand jury. On appeal, defendant argued that even though his case was presented as a self-defense case, there were sufficient facts in evidence to merit an instruction on passion or provocation for the second-degree murder charge. He also argued that the exclusion of the victim’s mental health evidence was error because it was admissible under Rule 404(b). And lastly, he argued that the dismissal of a juror partway through the trial because she admitted to having followed the story of the case during the grand jury phase was improper. The Supreme Court could not conclude that the instructions in this case were full, fair and correct on the elements of second-degree murder, assuming that the trial court’s decision to charge voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense was proper; nor could the Court conclude that the jury was not misled, despite the more accurate statement of the law in the voluntary manslaughter instruction. Some of the confusion in this case resulted from labeling defendant’s theory as trying to establish the victim’s motives for his actions. The Court concluded that the word was misused in this context. "If the medical records, for example, contained evidence that defendant had engaged in misconduct with respect to the victim’s girlfriend, we might describe that evidence as establishing a motive for the victim pursuing defendant with a splitting maul. Nothing like that is in the medical evidence. Instead, it relates generally to the victim’s mental health condition at the time of the killing, a circumstance that we would not describe in this case as motive." Based on its review of the excluded evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that in general it was relevant to defendant’s self-defense theory for the reason that defendant argued. The Court did not reach defendant's juror dismissal issue, and reversed and remanded this case for a new trial. View "Vermont v. Bolaski" on Justia Law