Clark, In re, 1952
| Decision Date | 03 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 1952,1952 |
| Citation | 255 A.2d 178,127 Vt. 555 |
| Parties | In re William Dennis CLARK. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
John P. Meaker, Waterbury, for petitioner.
James M. Jeffords, Atty. Gen., Alan W. Cheever, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Kimberly B. Cheney, State's Atty., for the State.
Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ.
This is a petition for review of a sentence, brought under the post-conviction relief statute, 13 V.S.A. § 7131. Relief was denied below. Under the provisions of 13 V.S.A. § 7133, the lower court is directed to 'determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.' We wish to make particular note of the praiseworthy manner in which the lower court carried out all aspects of this responsibility in this case. Both the factual ingredients and the legal rationale of the decision have been effectively set forth for us.
The reported facts disclose that the petitioner was first arrested on a charge of forgery and committed to jail for want of bail. Counsel was assigned, and investigated the case. He attempted to get the charge dropped, and did get it amended to a charge of passing false token. The file of the prosecutor was opened to him and he was shown a photograph of his client cashing the check in question at a supermarket.
The attorney was convinced that, under the circumstances, his client had no possibility of a successful defense. He advised the petitioner that his chances for probation would be enhanced if he would cooperate with the authorities. The petitioner was then already on probation on a nonsupport charge, and told the attorney that his probation officer would 'take him back.' The attorney at no time promised the petitioner probation. Afterwards the petitioner did talk with a Burlington police detective about persons and events related to his offense.
On his attorney's advice the petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the amended charge, and a pre-sentence investigation was ordered. While the matter was thus pending, the assigned attorney, in anticipation of possible absence from the state when the matter might be called up for sentencing, discussed the matter with his law partner. He fully advised his partner about all aspects of the case, including his hope to obtain probation for the petitioner based on his cooperation.
His partner then took over the case. When it was first called on for sentencing he got a continuance based on his inability to get in touch with the petitioner. When the matter was reset, the partner appeared with the petitioner. That attorney reviewed the case with the petitioner, going over job prospects, family situation and his cooperation with the authorities. The pre-sentence report, which was very unfavorable, was also discussed. The probation officer expressed an intent to charge the petitioner with breach of probation on the non-support charge, rather than to take him back. The report also showed a bad work record and several prior convictions.
The petitioner did not challenge or question the partner's appearance on his behalf in place of the attorney actually assigned. At no time did he indicate any desire to change his plea. Although the administrative order then governing assignment of counsel provided for substitution of counsel by order of court, and relief from assignment only by order of court, the assigning court in fact ordered no relief and made no substitution.
The partner attended a conference in chambers before petitioner was to be sentenced. There the presiding judge indicated a disposition to sentence petitioner to 2 to 3 years confinement. The attorney made a fifteen minute presentation on behalf of the client stressing the cooperativeness of the petitioner, the time already spent in jail and his family situation. Upon return to open court he made a further brief argument. As a result, a sentence of 18 to 24 months was imposed. The petitioner testified that he expected, at the time of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart, In re
...post-conviction relief is 13 V.S.A. § 7131, which is a "special statutory remedy in the nature of habeas corpus." In re Clark, 127 Vt. 555, 557, 255 A.2d 178, 180 (1969). It is patterned after the federal post-conviction relief statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1976). See Shequin v. Smith, 129 Vt.......
-
In re D.C.
...available. Vermont adopted the PCR Act in 1966, as a “special statutory remedy in the nature of habeas corpus .” In re Clark, 127 Vt. 555, 557, 255 A.2d 178, 180 (1969). It was patterned after the federal PCR statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In re Stewart, 140 Vt. 351, 355, 438 A.2d 1106, 1107 (1......
-
Fisher, In re
...as to his parole eligibility. See In re Kivela, 145 Vt. 454, 457, 494 A.2d 126, 128 (1985); see also In re Clark, 127 Vt. 555, 557, 255 A.2d 178, 180 (1969) (petitioner in post-conviction relief action has burden of establishing prejudice). In the instant case, the court found that (1) the ......
-
In re Collette, 07-040.
...n. 2 (3d Cir. 1989)). That Vaughn meant no jurisdiction remained to actually strike the earlier conviction is confirmed by its reliance on Clark, which considered a petitioner's attacks on two 1974 convictions after the sentences imposed had run, along with an attack on a 1979 conviction an......