Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The superior court certified a question of law for the Vermont Supreme Court’s review in connection with the prosecution of defendant Geoffrey King. Specifically, the court and parties asked the Supreme Court to determine what legal standard the superior court should apply to determine whether the State’s approximately three-year delay in bringing charges against defendant violated defendant’s due process rights under the U.S. and Vermont Constitutions. Defendant was accused of sexual assault. The Supreme Court concluded that, to establish the State’s pre-accusation delay violated a defendant’s due process rights under either the U.S. Constitution or the Vermont Constitution, the defendant had to demonstrate actual substantial prejudice and prosecutorial misconduct intended to gain a tactical advantage or to advance some other impermissible purpose that violates fundamental conceptions of justice. Because defendant failed to meet either prong of this standard, the Court affirmed the superior court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. View "Vermont v. King" on Justia Law

Eastern Bail Bond Agency, Inc., which had posted a surety bond for defendant Joshua Anderson, appealed the trial court's forfeiture of bail and subsequent denials of Eastern's motions to vacate and to reconsider. On appeal, Eastern raised several arguments concerning the propriety of the order under the circumstances of the case. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the court failed to properly exercise its discretion in forfeiting bail without resolving Eastern's factual allegations. The Court therefore reversed and remanded. View "Vermont v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Following a conditional guilty plea to drug and child-cruelty charges, defendant Stuart Cleland appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant of his residence did not provide probable cause for issuance of the warrant. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial. View "Vermont v. Cleland" on Justia Law

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

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

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