Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Frank Fellows appealed convictions for sexual assault and lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. He argued that the trial court erred in allowing the State to question his siblings regarding his relationship with the child's (his daughter) mother, and for using that evidence in the State's closing argument. In addition, Defendant contended the trial court omitted reversible error when it admitted testimony of the child-victim's friend regarding a conversation the friend had with the victim on the day after the incident. Finding no errors, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Fellows" on Justia Law

Defendants Timothy Persons and the Trust A of Timothy Persons appealed an Environmental Division decision holding that certain excavation work performed on their property violated the state Wetlands Protection and Water Resources Management laws and the state Wetlands Rules. Among other things, defendants contended they were not given adequate notice that portions of the lands in question contained a protected wetland, and therefore, should not have been subjected to fines. The Supreme Court found no merit to defendants' contentions, and affirmed the Environmental Division. View "Agency of Natural Resources v. Persons" on Justia Law

The Town of Vernon appealed a superior court decision that reversed its decision to fire police chief Kevin Turnley. The Selectboard determined that the chief made inaccurate statements at public meetings when asked about his knowledge of a certain criminal defendant's (a sex-offender) residence in town and why he didn't tell the community. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that Selectboard failed to make the necessary findings on record to support the chief's firing, so the Court affirmed the superior court's decision. View "Turnley v. Town of Vernon" on Justia Law

Petitioner William Kimmick appealed a superior court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), contending he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. Finding no ineffective counsel or error by the superior court in its decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief. View "In re Kimmick" on Justia Law

The Town of Hartford and Marc and Susan Wood have been involved in a property dispute for over a decade. At issue: the construction of a large concrete retaining wall along the Woods property. They appealed the latest superior court decision in the matter. In 1999, the Town approved the Woods' application for a zoning permit to construct the wall. In early 2000, Woods began stockpiling recycled concrete slab sections in order to construct it. The Town served Woods a Notice of Violation (NOV) and filed an enforcement action, arguing that the concrete was not what was specified in the zoning permit. A court determined that Woods failed to meet the specifications for the permit. Woods appealed, and thus began the litigation that ultimately wound up before the Supreme Court in this case. In 2011, the superior court concluded that Woods still had not adhered to the permit's specifications. Woods raised thirteen claims of error on appeal, mostly challenging the sufficiency of evidence and errors in interpretation of the zoning code. Finding no error in the superior court's 2011 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Wood NOV, Town of Hartford v. Wood" on Justia Law

The Town of Fairfax cited homeowner Leon Beliveau for changing the use of his property from a single-family dwelling to a rooming-and-boarding house without obtaining the necessary zoning permits. Beliveau argued on appeal that the trial court erred in finding his property was used as a boarding house, and that the Town's zoning laws were unconstitutionally vague. Finding no error in the trial court's view of Beliveau's property, and that the town's zoning laws were not unconstitutionally vague, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Beliveau NOV, Town of Fairfax v. Beliveau" on Justia Law

K.F.'s (a juvenile) father appealed the termination of his parental rights. On appeal to the Supreme Court, he argued the trial court erred in denying his motion for new counsel since his previous lawyer had a conflict of interest. As justification, father argued that his trial counsel failed to pursue certain strategies he suggested, and that she would not introduce or object to what he felt was important evidence at trial because she had been a foster parent and was therefore sympathetic to the Department for Children and Families (DCF). The trial court did not find these arguments persuasive and denied father's motion to remove father's trial counsel. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that father did not demonstrate that his lawyer rendered ineffective counsel, and accordingly affirmed the trial court's decision. View "In re K.F." on Justia Law

Husband Kenneth Felis appealed a final divorce order, arguing the superior court abused its discretion in setting parent-child contact, dividing the marital estate, and awarding wife nominal maintenance and attorney's fees. Upon review of the superior court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the parent-child contact order, the award of nominal maintenance, and the partial award of attorney's fees out of the marital estate to his wife. As to the property award, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case back to the Superior Court for further proceedings. View "Felis v. Felis" on Justia Law

Father Tedley Coles challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to reopen the time in which to file an appeal of a maintenance and child support order. On appeal, he asserted that his motion was timely under Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(c). Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court found that the evidence did not support the Father's contention. View "Coles v. Coles" on Justia Law

Petitioner Vito Russo appealed a civil division order dismissing his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner sought to attack convictions for which his sentences had been completed, and the court concluded that petitioner was not "in custody under sentence" as required by 13 V.S.A. 7131. Petitioner argued that he satisfied the custody requirement because although his sentences were completed they were used by the criminal division to hold him without bail pending trial on a different charge. Because petitioner failed to allege that his pretrial incarceration was sufficiently linked to the convictions he seeks to attack, the Supreme Court concluded that petitioner failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements of the PCR statute, and affirmed. View "In re Russo" on Justia Law