Petitioner David Barron appealed a superior court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department of Corrections, upholding his prison disciplinary conviction for threatening another person. He argued the DOC: (1) failed to prove he had the ability and opportunity to carry out his threat as required by DOC policy for a prison disciplinary conviction; and (2) failed to hold his hearing within the time allowed by the policy. Finding no reversible error in the superior court’s order, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Barron v. Menard" on Justia Law

The State appealed the Human Services Board’s decision reversing a determination by the Economic Services Division of the Department for Children and Families (DCF) that J.H. could not be considered for a subsidized qualified healthcare plan on the Vermont Health Connect exchange because she had health insurance available to her through her husband’s employer. The appeal turned on whether, under controlling federal law, healthcare insurance had to be considered available to J.H. through her husband’s employer even though her husband elected not to enroll in his employer’s plan and she herself could not enroll in the plan unless he did. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the Board’s ruling that J.H. could be considered for a subsidized healthcare plan through Vermont Health Connect, but the Court based its decision on a different rationale than that given by the Board. "The focus of the Affordable Care Act, however, is not to bolster the employer-based healthcare system. As the United States Supreme Court has stated, the principal purpose of the Act is 'to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care.'” View "In re J.H." on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Rondeau appealed after he was convicted on two counts of aggravated sexual assault, which were based on an information citing statutes not yet in effect at the time of the alleged criminal acts. The issues this case presented for the Vermont Supreme Court’s review were: (1) whether defendant’s convictions under the statutes listed in the information violated the Ex Post Facto Clause; (2) whether the sentencing court could, post-verdict and sua sponte, amend the information to list statutes in effect when the alleged acts occurred; and (3) whether the original unamended information provided sufficient notice to sustain defendant’s convictions under the statutes in effect when defendant’s alleged criminal conduct occurred. Because the Court concluded defendant’s convictions under the listed statutes violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, that the sentencing court lacked the authority to sua sponte amend the information after trial, and that the original, unamended charging documents provided defendant with insufficient notice of the charges, the Court vacated defendant’s convictions. View "Vermont v. Rondeau" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Grace appealed after he was convicted for driving under the influence, third offense. Among other claims, he argued that the trial court erred by proceeding with a motion to suppress hearing without him. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court agreed that was in error, and reversed the order denying the motion to suppress. View "Vermont v. Grace" on Justia Law

Defendant Cameron Albarelli was convicted by jury of simple assault, disorderly conduct, and providing false information to a police officer. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred because (1) the trial court erred by failing to give a self-defense instruction to the jury; (2) his disorderly conduct conviction should have been reversed because insufficient evidence was presented at trial to convict him, and that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on unanimity; and (3) the providing false information conviction was supported by insufficient evidence. Furthermore, defendant argued the trial court erred in arriving at his probation conditions. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, but struck several of the probation conditions, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Vermont v. Albarelli" on Justia Law

This appeal stems from a dispute regarding the parties’ obligations with respect to several tax liens discovered post-divorce in light of two hold-harmless provisions in a final divorce decree. Wife argued that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to enforce the hold-harmless and indemnification provisions and failing to address the parties’ respective obligations with respect to the tax liens. After review of the decree and the provisions at issue here, the Vermont Supreme Court agreed, and accordingly reversed and remanded so the trial court could address wife’s claims. View "Flanagan v. duMont" on Justia Law

Appellants Natural Resources Board and Applicant Two Rivers-Ottauquechee (TRO) Regional Commission appealed the Environmental Division’s award of an Act 250 permit to Applicant B&M Realty, LLC, to construct a large mixed-use business park near the Interstate 89 Exit 1 interchange in the Town of Hartford. The trial court concluded that the project satisfied Act 250, including the requirement that it conform with the 2007 TRO Regional Plan. The Natural Resources Board and the TRO Regional Commission argued on appeal that the project was inconsistent with mandatory and unambiguous provisions in the regional plan. Applicant cross-appealed, arguing that the 2007 Regional Plan did not apply, and that the Supreme Court need not consider the plan because the proposed development will not have substantial regional impact. The Supreme Court concluded that the 2007 Regional Plan applied and that the trial court’s conclusion that the project will have substantial regional impact is supported by the evidence, but held that the project was inconsistent with several provisions in the regional plan. The Court accordingly reversed. View "In re B&M Realty, LLC" on Justia Law

In an interlocutory appeal, the State challenged the trial court’s suppression of two sets of statements that defendant John Powers made to his probation officer. The trial court determined that suppression was warranted because the probation officer did not provide defendant with the warnings required by "Miranda v. Arizona," (384 U.S. 436 (1966)). The State argued that Miranda warnings were not required because defendant was not in custody at the time he made his incriminatory statements. After review, the Supreme Court agreed with the State with respect to the first set of statements and reversed the decision to suppress those statements; the Court reversed and remanded the trial court’s decision with respect to the second set of statements for further findings on the issue of custody. View "Vermont v. Powers" on Justia Law

Petitioner Mark Jankowski appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). In November 2010, petitioner pled guilty to sexual assault on a child, and was sentenced to a term of five to twenty years, all suspended except for three years to serve, and probation. He found to have violated his probation in August 2011. At the conclusion of its decision, the trial court indicated that the matter would be “set for a sentencing hearing.” At the sentencing hearing on March 13, 2012, the court asked if it would be a contested sentencing hearing, prompting counsel for the State and for petitioner to ask for time to confer. Their request was granted. Upon their return to court with petitioner, counsel informed the court that the parties had reached an agreement. Petitioner’s sentence would be amended from a five-to-twenty-year split sentence with three years to serve to a four-to-twenty-years straight sentence to serve. His probation would be revoked. He would also be given credit for all time served. Defense counsel indicated that he had spoken with petitioner and stated that petitioner had agreed with the resolution. The court accepted the agreement. A year later, Petitioner filed a pro se PCR petition, alleging the Violation of Probation (VOP) process violated his constitutional rights. He asserted that no sentencing hearing was held, he did not waive such hearing, and he was never personally addressed by the court. The PCR court granted summary judgment to the State, concluding petitioner’s rights were satisfied when he was afforded a full evidentiary hearing on the merits portion of the revocation hearing. The Supreme Court held that petitioner was entitled to PCR to overturn his probation revocation. The case was remanded for a new determination regarding whether his probation should be revoked and a new sentencing hearing if it was revoked. View "In re Mark Jankowski" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Melissa Solomon appealed the dismissal, without consideration of the merits, of her petition for dissolution of a nonresident civil union. Plaintiff and defendant entered into a civil union in 2001 in Brattleboro, Vermont, but both resided in Wake County, North Carolina. The parties were separated by May 2014. The parties had no children. In 2015, they decided to dissolve their civil union and filed an uncontested complaint in Vermont, accompanied by a final stipulation as required by 15 V.S.A. 1206(b). The superior court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the parties failed to produce evidence that they attempted to obtain a dissolution of the civil union in North Carolina. The court expressed concern that if Vermont courts “continue[d] to accept these filings and allow courts in other states to ignore precedent [set by Obergefell v. Hodges, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2608 (2015)], the situation [would] never be resolved.” Because civil marriage and civil unions remained legally distinct entities in Vermont and because "Obergefell" mandated that states recognize only same-sex marriage, uncertainty remained as to whether Obergefell required other states to recognize and dissolve civil unions established in Vermont. The parties here followed the section 1206(b) mandates. Plaintiff contended that the provided affidavit satisfied the “acknowledgment” required by § 1206(b), and thus the court erred when it refused to consider the issue and held that North Carolina was the proper venue for all filings and appeals. The Vermont Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff, and reversed and remanded the trial court's dismissal. View "Solomon v. Guidry" on Justia Law