Martel v. Lanman

• Decision Date: 14 April 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99-388.,99-388.
• Citation: 759 A.2d 65
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: Eugene P. MARTEL v. Kathleen LANMAN, Superintendent, Northern State Correctional Facility.

759 A.2d 65

Eugene P. MARTEL v. Kathleen LANMAN, Superintendent, Northern State Correctional Facility.

No. 99-388.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

April 14, 2000.

Motion for Reargument Denied August 21, 2000.

Present: AMESTOY, C.J., and DOOLEY, MORSE, JOHNSON and SKOGLUND, JJ.

ENTRY ORDER

In this appeal from a Caledonia Superior Court decision granting the Department of Correction's (DOC) motion to dismiss, petitioner argues that the DOC did not properly credit him for time served. We affirm.

The relevant facts are undisputed. On July 23, 1992, petitioner was sentenced for aggravated assault, escape, simple assault, and violation of conditions of release, to a term of one-to-six years of incarceration ("first sentence"). On March 29, 1994, petitioner was sentenced for sexual assault to a term of fifteen-to-twenty years of incarceration ("second sentence"). The second sentence was imposed consecutively to the first sentence. See 13 V.S.A. § 7032(b) (granting court authority to impose consecutive sentences "where a person is convicted of two or more offenses punishable by imprisonment and is sentenced for more than one of these offenses"). The imposition of the fifteen-to-twenty year sentence for sexual assault, added to the one-to-six year sentence for petitioner's 1992 offenses, resulted in an aggregate sentence of a minimum term of sixteen years and a maximum term of twenty-six years. See 13 V.S.A. § 7032(c)(2) ("When [multiple prison terms are imposed] consecutively, the minimum terms are added to arrive at an aggregate minimum to be served equal to the sum of all minimum terms and the maximum terms are added to arrive at an aggregate maximum equal to the sum of all maximum terms.").

Petitioner's claim relates to a period of incarceration between March 5, 1993, and March 29, 1994. March 5, 1992, was the date on which he served the minimum term of his first sentence, and March 29, 1994, was the date his second sentence was imposed. Petitioner argues that the DOC has not properly awarded him credit toward the second sentence for this period. The DOC responds that petitioner received credit for the full period (approximately thirteen months) toward the first sentence. At issue is whether the superior court appropriately applied 13 V.S.A. § 7031(b) in denying petitioner's claim.

13 V.S.A. § 7031(b) provides:

The sentence of imprisonment of any person convicted of an offense shall commence to run from the date on which the person is received at the correctional facility for service of the sentence. The court shall give the person credit toward service of his sentence for any days spent in custody in connection with the offense for which sentence was imposed.

(Emphasis added.)

In State v. Blondin, 164 Vt. 55, 56-57, 665 A.2d 587, 589 (1995), we held that the plain meaning of § 7031(b) does not require that "parole violators who are jailed and do not make bail on new charges be given double credit for time served before imposition of either the new or the underlying sentence, whichever comes later, even if the sentences are imposed consecutively." We noted that § 7031(b) is intended to ensure that offenders be given credit "`for any days spent in custody in connection with the offense for which sentence was imposed.'" Id. at 57, 665 A.2d at 589 (quoting § 7031(b)) (emphasis added).

Here, petitioner argues that the thirteen month period between March 5, 1993, and March 29, 1994, cannot be construed by the DOC to be "in connection with" the 1992 offenses. Apparently, petitioner reasons that an inmate who has reached the minimum term of his first...