Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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 Dennis Chandler appealed a superior court decision denying his claim for summary judgment, and granting the summary judgment motion filed by the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections. Plaintiff claimed that several statutes and policies enacted after his incarceration had the collective effect of retroactively increasing the length of his sentence and, as a result, violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that, because the statutes and policies did not retroactively alter or limit the Department’s discretion over plaintiff’s treatment programming and early release, their application did not result in a longer sentence than under the prior statutes and policies. View "Chandler v. Pallito" on Justia Law

Following her conditional plea of guilty to a charge of driving while intoxicated (DWI), second offense, defendant Lenore Hayes appealed the superior court’s denial of her motions to suppress evidence from the vehicle stop and dismiss the case. She argued that there was no reasonable basis for the stop and that, in any event, all evidence should have been suppressed due to the arresting officer’s failure to produce a complete video recording of the stop. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Hayes" on Justia Law

Defendant Allen Prue was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted kidnapping following a jury trial. On appeal, he argued: (1) his March 27, 2012 confession should have been suppressed because his waiver of his Miranda rights and ensuing confession were not voluntary; (2) the trial court erred in excluding evidence of his wife’s psychiatric diagnosis; (3) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his wife’s internet search history; and (4) his sentence should have been reversed and remanded because the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue his sentencing so that certain witnesses could testify. After review and finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant’s convictions and sentence. View "Vermont v. Prue" on Justia Law

Defendant Toby Charbonneau pleaded guilty to felony possession of stolen property and misdemeanor possession of stolen property. He was subsequently ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $35,791. On appeal, he challenged the restitution order, arguing: (1) whether an order of restitution had to relate to the damage caused by the criminal conduct for which defendant pleaded guilty; (2) whether restitution was limited to items that were not recovered and returned to the victim; and (3) whether the trial court was required to make findings as to a defendant’s ability to pay in a restitution order. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed on the first issue: "Defendant was not charged with burglary, and pleaded only to possession of stolen property, a plea based on the recovery of some of the victims’ stolen property from his residence. The restitution order, however, was based on the value of the property burgled from the victims’ residence. [. . .] That defendant had in his possession some of the property stolen from the victims’ home does not mean the criminal act for which defendant was convicted included the burglary of the victims’ home. Possession of stolen property and burglary are entirely separate crimes." View "Vermont v. Charbonneau" on Justia Law

Following an altercation with his wife and an ensuing conflict with police, defendant Miles Dow was charged with several counts, related to his conduct both towards his wife and to the responding police officers. During trial, based on improper questions from defense counsel, the court declared a mistrial on all counts involving defendant’s wife (the complainant). The trial continued, and the jury found defendant guilty of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon and attempted simple assault by menace on a law enforcement officer. Defendant appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence, the jury instructions were faulty, and his convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. Defendant also moved to dismiss the charges for which a mistrial was granted, arguing that the grounds for a mistrial were insufficient and jeopardy had attached. The court denied this motion, but granted defendant’s request to bring an interlocutory appeal. After its review of defendant’s direct and interlocutory appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant’s aggravated-assault conviction, vacated his simple assault conviction and reversed the court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. View "Vermont v. Dow" on Justia Law

Defendant Kerri Nicholas was convicted of one count of domestic assault, and one count of cruelty to a child. The child's teacher observed bruises and notified the Department of Children and Families. Defendant had a romantic relationship with the child's mother and moved in with the mother in April 2012. The teacher observed the bruises when school started that year in September. On appeal, defendant argued that the child-cruelty conviction should have been reversed because the trial court’s jury instructions allowed for a non-unanimous verdict, and that the State’s conduct during the trial created a risk of undue prejudice with respect to both counts. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. View "Vermont v. Nicholas" on Justia Law