Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Alvin Stocks appealed the superior court’s order granting summary judgment to the State on his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). He argued that the trial court did not comply with Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in accepting his guilty pleas to various crimes. In June 2009, petitioner, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty to: operation without consent of owner; driving under the influence, second offense; possession of marijuana; and domestic assault. In July 2011, petitioner filed a pro se PCR petition. Counsel was appointed and petitioner moved for summary judgment. Petitioner argued that the undisputed facts showed that the plea colloquy failed to comply with Rule 11(f) because the court did not sufficiently establish a factual basis for the pleas. "What is principally required - and what was missing in this case - is evidence of a specific inquiry by the judge into the factual basis for the plea." The Supreme Court reversed, finding that although the trial court asked petitioner if he understood the charges against him and, in connection with some charges, whether he understood the alleged factual basis for the charge, the trial court never asked him if he admitted the truth of the allegations, nor whether the State could prove the underlying facts. "The court never asked him to describe the facts giving rise to the charges in his own words, and never sought any other admissions from him to support the conclusion that the guilty pleas had a factual basis. The court did not elicit from petitioner any information to support the finding of a factual basis. Petitioner confirmed his understanding of the charges but, apart from the actual guilty pleas themselves, admitted nothing." View "In re Stocks" on Justia Law

Defendant Roger Perry appealed the trial court's issuance of a mittimus ordering the Department of Corrections (DOC) not to give defendant credit for time served in connection with prior convictions. The State did not challenge defendant's claim that the mittimus violated the parties' plea agreement and created an illegal sentence, but argued that because defendant has completed the time-to-serve portion of his sentence, this appeal was moot. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the appeal was not moot because defendant was still serving the challenged sentence, and that the amended mittimus violated Vermont's sentencing statute. View "Vermont v. Perry" on Justia Law

Petitioner's state-appointed counsel filed an untimely notice of appeal of the trial court's denial of petitioner's first post-conviction relief (PCR) petition. It was uncontested that by failing to timely file a notice of appeal, counsel performed well below any recognized standard of care. The Supreme Court has held previously that where counsel negligently fails to perfect an appeal, the defendant has not knowingly and intelligently waived the appeal "there is per se ineffective counsel." The question this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether petitioner had a remedy for his counsel's failure to perfect his PCR appeal. Petitioner argued that his first PCR should be reinstated because the statutory right to PCR counsel includes a minimal level of competence, which was plainly violated in this case. The State supported petitioner's request to reverse the trial court and reinstate the first appeal. "Because this case presents an egregious example of injustice," the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the superior court with directions that petitioner's initial PCR be reinstated with a renewed opportunity for petitioner to file a notice of appeal. View "In re Babson" on Justia Law

The question in this case presented to the Supreme Court was whether, in response to a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition, the court erred in vacating petitioner Nick Manosh’s 1992 conviction for a misdemeanor count of driving under the influence (DUI) based on the sentencing court’s failure to comply with Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in taking petitioner’s no-contest plea. The State appealed, arguing that the PCR court failed to take into account petitioner’s written waiver of his Rule 11 rights, and that the sentencing court’s colloquy substantially complied with Rule 11. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Manosh" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two counts arising from the same alleged incident: (1) violation of a term of a relief-from-abuse (RFA) order that required him to remain at least three hundred feet from his girlfriend and her residence; and (2) violation of a condition of release from an earlier criminal charge that prohibited him from contacting his girlfriend. Defendant appealed the jury verdict that he violated the temporary RFA order and violated conditions of release imposed. Defendant raises two unrelated questions for review: (1) the denial of his motion for mistrial; and (2) the validity of one of his probation conditions. The Supreme Court affirmed with respect to defendant's arguments on appeal, but remanded the case for the trial court to consider the parties’ stipulation with regard to defendant’s sentence. View "Vermont v. Pettitt" on Justia Law

Defendant Allen Spaulding appealed his conviction on domestic assault charges. The issues on appeal centered on the admission of the complainant’s written statement as past recollection recorded and claims of insufficiency of the evidence and improper closing argument. The Supreme Court reversed on the admission of the written statement as hearsay, concluding that the admission was not harmless to defendant's case. View "Vermont v. Spaulding" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the Superior Court, Environmental Division’s affirmance of the zoning board’s grant of a conditional use zoning permit to applicant Group Five Investments, LLC, to build and operate a Dollar General store in Ferrisburgh. Opponents claimed: (1) the trial court erroneously shifted the burden of proof by requiring opponents to show both that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on the area and that existing commercial development in the area already had an adverse impact; (2) the trial court erred in using the "Quechee" definition of undue adverse impact as guidance in interpreting the zoning ordinance; and (3) the trial court erred in failing to rule that the proposed use is prohibited under the applicable zoning ordinance, and that the trial court violated Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) by failing to make requested findings on the proposed use of the Dollar General store. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "In re Group Five Investments CU Permit" on Justia Law

The father of L.M. appealed the trial court's finding L.M. to be a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS). He raised numerous arguments. The Supreme Court found that while father's unstable living situation, standing alone, might not be sufficient to support a CHINS determination, there were multiple elements of risk under the facts of this case leading to the trial court's conclusion that father and L.M. could end up in an unsafe living situation. Furthermore, father's inability to follow through on recommendations designed to promote L.M.'s safety enhanced the potential risk of harm to L.M.'s well-being. Given these factors, including mother's concession, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court record supported the decision that there was a risk of prospective harm to the child sufficient to justify the State’s temporary intervention to ensure that L.M. was safe. View "In re L.M." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of sexual assault. He appealed that conviction, arguing that his case should have been dismissed on speedy trial grounds and that he was entitled to a new trial based on statements made in closing argument by the prosecution. While defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial at the appropriate time, the Supreme Court concluded that that right must be balanced with the facts that he was out on bail for the entire period of delay and has identified few specific claims of prejudice. Under these circumstances, the Court concluded that defendant was not deprived of his right to a speedy trial. Moreover, the prosecutor’s statements did not rise to the level of fundamental misconduct required by the "plain error" standard. View "Vermont v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

Defendant Scott Provost appealed the decision of the criminal division that he violated his probation when he refused to admit the offense and failed to complete a domestic violence program in a timely manner, and engaged in threatening behavior while attempting to sign up for the program eight months after his conviction. Defendant argued that the original one-year fixed term of probation expired during the pendency of this appeal, excusing him from the consequences of any subsequent violations. The Supreme Court affirmed on the ground that the record supported the trial court’s determination that defendant violated the terms of his probation by his delay in enrolling in and completing the domestic violence program. View "Vermont v. Provost" on Justia Law