Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Edwin Rodriquez appealed the denial of his motion to be resentenced. Defendant was charged with aggravated domestic assault and related criminal counts for physically assaulting his then-romantic partner. After defendant pled not guilty, the trial court ordered defendant to be held without bail. While awaiting trial, defendant remained incarcerated throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and unsuccessfully sought to be released on bail based on health concerns arising from conditions of his confinement. At a change-of-plea hearing in December 2021, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated domestic assault in the first degree and one count of domestic assault. As part of that plea agreement, the State agreed to a cap of twelve years of incarceration. in advance of his sentencing hearing, defendant submitted a sentencing memorandum in which he sought a 4- to 8-year sentence. Defendant referenced several mitigating factors in support of his sentence. The trial court evaluated the pertinent factors and arrived at what it considered an appropriate sentence: 9- to 12-years. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court failed to adequately consider the mitigating factors presented and improperly relied on prior uncharged conduct. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the sentence. View "Vermont v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Petitioner Allco Renewable Energy Limited appealed a Vermont Public Utility Commission denial of its request for a certificate of public good (CPG) to construct a solar energy project in Bennington, Vermont. Under Vermont law, a company desiring to build an in-state electric generation facility may not begin site preparation or construction unless the Commission “first finds that the [project] will promote the general good of the State and issues a certificate to that effect.” Under the test used by the Commission, an adverse impact on aesthetics is undue if it “violate[s] a clear, written community standard intended to preserve the aesthetics or scenic, natural beauty of the area.” In 2015, petitioner applied for a CPG to construct a 2.0-megawatt solar electric generation facility. The project site was in a Rural Conservation District as defined in the Bennington Town Plan. The plan stated that development in Rural Conservation Districts “cannot be sited in prominently visible locations on hillsides or ridgelines.” Appellee Apple Hill Homeowners Association (AHHA) intervened in the CPG proceeding, as did the Town of Bennington. The Town initially argued that petitioner should not be granted a CPG because the project would violate clear, written community standards in the Town Plan, and would therefore interfere with the orderly development of the region and have an undue adverse impact on aesthetics. The Town later changed its position, voting not to oppose the project, and withdrew from the proceeding. Based in part on the Town’s decision not to oppose the project, the hearing officer issued a proposal for decision recommending the Commission conclude the project would not violate any written community standard, and would therefore not unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region or have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics. The Commission adopted the hearing officer’s findings and issued petitioner a CPG. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed, finding the Commission's conclusion was only based on the Town's decision not to oppose the project. The case was remanded to the Commission, who assigned it to a new hearing officer, who then reversed the prior decision, finding the project would therefore unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region and have an undue adverse impact on aesthetics. Ultimately the Commission concurred with this decision. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the Commission denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's last decision on this matter, upholding the denial of a CPG. View "In re Petition of Apple Hill Solar LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff William Doherty appealed the grant of summary judgment to defendant Alphonse Sorrentino. On the morning of November 8, 2019, plaintiff walked a short distance from the Village Inn to the Woodstock Inn in Woodstock, Vermont. It was not precipitating at that time. He remained at the Woodstock Inn for about fifteen minutes. It began to snow as he left the Woodstock Inn to return to the Village Inn. Plaintiff slipped and fell on a sidewalk abutting 81 Central Street. Snow had lightly accumulated on the sidewalk. Defendant arrived after plaintiff fell but before an ambulance transported plaintiff to a local hospital. Defendant was also the sole owner of ACS Design Build and Construction Services, LLC, both of which had main offices at 81 Central Street. The sidewalk was owned by the Town of Woodstock. The Town had an ordinance that required owners of property abutting a [Woodstock] Village sidewalk clear accumulated snow or ice for pedestrian traffic to a minimum width of three feet, and within twenty-four hours of such accumulation. No accumulated snow had been cleared at the time plaintiff fell. Plaintiff sued, alleging that defendant, in his personal capacity, breached a duty to plaintiff to clear the sidewalk of snow, which was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. In moving for summary judgment, defendant argued that he owed no duty to plaintiff because: neither defendant nor the owner of the building, Tanglewood, owned or controlled the sidewalk on which plaintiff fell; landowners abutting public sidewalks owed no duty to the public to keep the sidewalk in a safe condition; and the municipal ordinance did not otherwise create a duty to plaintiff. The civil division awarded summary judgment to defendant concluding plaintiff did not bear his burden to show that defendant knew or should have known of a dangerous condition on the sidewalk. The court determined that plaintiff failed to offer any basis to reach defendant’s personal assets as sole shareholder of Tanglewood, and that plaintiff did not allege defendant owned or controlled the sidewalk where plaintiff fell. The court found that the municipal ordinance did not create a duty of care to plaintiff. Finding no reversible error in the trial court judgment, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Doherty v. Sorrentino, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant Seth Alarie appealed a final relief-from-abuse (RFA) order requested by plaintiff Carissa Poss, his former girlfriend. On February 6, 2023, plaintiff filed a form RFA complaint alleging defendant physically abused and stalked her on two previous occasions. The family division issued a temporary RFA order on that date, and set a hearing for ten days later. Defendant was served with the complaint, both affidavits, the temporary order, and the notice of hearing at 4 p.m. on February 15. Both parties appeared at the hearing pro se. After the hearing, the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had abused and stalked plaintiff. The court issued its findings and conclusions orally from the bench and followed up with a written order prohibiting defendant from, among other things, contacting plaintiff or coming within 300 feet of plaintiff, her residence, place of employment, or car for one year. Represented by counsel on appeal, defendant attacked the proceedings, arguing that due process rights applied to RFA proceedings and that the court violated those rights by holding the hearing after he received less than twenty-four hours’ notice and not granting a continuance for defendant to retain counsel. He argued the trial court violated other due process rights when it did not permit him to cross-examine plaintiff and took testimony outside the scope of the facts alleged in the pleadings. Finding no deprivation of due process nor other reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Poss v. Alarie" on Justia Law

Mother appealed multiple family court decisions that found her four minor children B.G., E.G., I.O., and A.O. to be children in need of care or supervision (CHINS). Mother’s husband J.O., who was the father of I.O. and A.O., also appealed the decisions concerning those children. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded the CHINS determinations were not supported by the court’s findings or the evidence, and therefore reversed the CHINS merits and associated disposition orders. The Supreme Court also concluded that the court erred in permitting the dissemination of certain records from the CHINS proceedings to J.O. and his advocate in a separate administrative appeal, and reversed that order as well. View "In re A.O. & I.O." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of her motion to enforce a provision in the parties’ final divorce order that gave her the option to purchase jointly owned real property from defendant. The property at issue was a five-acre parcel of land with buildings on the Connecticut River where the parties lived and operated a marina business during their marriage. In the final divorce order, the court gave each party the option to buy out the other’s share of the property. If plaintiff chose not to exercise the purchase option and defendant wished to do so instead, he had to notify plaintiff and send her a check. If neither party wished to purchase the property and business, it was to be sold through a realtor and the proceeds would be split between the parties. In January 2022, plaintiff moved to enforce her option to purchase the marina property. Plaintiff asserted that an April 2020 court order had given her thirty days to notify defendant of her intent to purchase. She argued that the order was stayed by her motion to alter or amend the judgment and subsequent notice of further proceedings, and did not become final until the trial court issued a November 2021 decision. According to plaintiff, she had thirty days from that date to exercise the option and did so by sending a letter with a $25,000 check to defendant on November 30, 2021. Defendant opposed plaintiff’s motion and filed his own motion to enforce the sale of the property to him. Defendant asserted that after plaintiff indicated in her motion to alter or amend that she did not want to purchase the property, he had notified her of his intent to purchase it on June 1, 2020, and mailed her a $25,000 check. At that time, plaintiff responded by offering to sell the property for a much higher price but did not express any interest in purchasing it herself. After the court issued its decision on remand, defendant sent plaintiff a check for the remaining $217,500 along with a quitclaim deed for her to complete. Defendant argued that plaintiff’s first appeal did not stay or alter the deadlines for exercising the purchase option, which expired in June 2020. The family division of the superior court concluded that plaintiff’s purchase option had expired and that defendant effectively exercised his option to purchase the property instead. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Thurber v. Thurber" on Justia Law

In October 1987, defendant William Wheelock, III shot and killed James Brillon with a shotgun. He was convicted by jury of second-degree murder and sentenced to seventeen-years-to-life, with a split sentence to serve seventeen years. Following defendant’s release from probation in 1999, his Vermont probation officer (PO) filed three separate violation-of-probation (VOP) complaints against him in 1999, 2002, and 2003. In 2004, after the third VOP complaint was filed the year before, the VOP court concluded that defendant violated three probation conditions, revoked probation, and imposed the original sentence of life imprisonment. Defendant remained incarcerated since his 2003 arrest on the most recent VOP complaint, more than twenty years ago. In April 2018, defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), arguing that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to appeal the 2004 revocation decision. The PCR court granted the petition and permitted defendant to appeal the 2004 violations and revocation of probation to this Court. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the probation violations and reversed and remanded the court’s revocation of probation. "When the VOP court revoked defendant’s probation after failing to consider all of the evidence but following consideration of prior conduct, in contravention of 28 V.S.A. § 303(b), it clearly prejudiced defendant’s defense and adversely affected the integrity of the judicial process. ... we conclude that defendant is entitled to a new probation-revocation-disposition hearing." View "Vermont v. Wheelock" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kyle Wolfe appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit against Vermont Digger and its editor (collectively, “VT Digger”), arguing that dismissal was improper and alleging that VT Digger’s publication of articles about him was defamatory and constituted a hate crime. VT Digger cross-appealed, arguing that its special motion to strike under Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute should not have been denied as moot after its motion to dismiss was granted. In October 2021, plaintiff was arrested at the Vermont Statehouse on charges of aggravated disorderly conduct, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest based on conduct directed toward the Speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives. VT Digger published an article in October 2021, titled, “Man arrested at the Vermont Statehouse after threatening House speaker.” In December 2021, plaintiff was released on conditions that required him to stay in Rutland County and prohibited him from possessing firearms or contacting the House Speaker. The same day, VT Digger published an article titled, “Defendant who threatened House speaker released with several conditions.” In February 2022, plaintiff allegedly posted annotated photographs of firearms to his social media accounts, “tagged” the House Speaker in a Facebook post, and asked others to contact the House Speaker, noting in a comment on Facebook, “Yes, I am aware this is technically ‘illegal.’ ” Due to this conduct, plaintiff was charged in March 2022 with violating the anti-stalking order. VT Digger subsequently published an article on March 3, 2022, detailing plaintiff’s new conditions of release. Finally, on March 7, VT Digger published another article describing plaintiff’s social media posts that led to the charge of violating the order against stalking and his conditions of release. Plaintiff filed a complaint against VT Digger in May 2022 accusing it of defamation by libel and slander and requesting the civil division enjoin VT Digger from publishing further articles about him. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, but concluded the trial court should have granted VT Digger’s motion to strike, and therefore reversed and remanded for the court to award attorney’s fees to VT Digger pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. View "Wolfe v. VT Digger et al." on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, Parents challenged the termination of their residual parental rights to K.G. and L.G., and the denial of their post-termination motion to set aside the merits and disposition orders in this case under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) based on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Vermont Supreme Court found it was unnecessary to decide if parents had a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in juvenile proceedings and affirmed both decisions. View "In re K.G. & L.G." on Justia Law

Defendant James Menize was convicted by jury on one count of aggravated sexual assault of a victim under the age of thirteen, and one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. Defendant raised multiple arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting prior bad-act evidence, not curing J.M.’s trial testimony which characterized the bad acts as each occurring on more than once occasion, and providing a jury instruction that failed to cabin the resulting prejudice; (2) the court should have suppressed all the inculpatory statements he made during a March 3, 2010, interview as either unconstitutionally elicited during a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings or as involuntary; (3) the timing of the amended information prejudiced his ability to put on an effective defense because the new charge contained a different mental state for which he did not have time to adequately prepare; and (4) the court erred in overruling his objection to the state's expert witness testimony regarding another expert's testimony. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed defendant's conviction. View "Vermont v. Menize" on Justia Law