Shuttle, In re, 62-69

Decision Date17 June 1969
Docket NumberNo. 62-69,62-69
Citation256 A.2d 28,127 Vt. 602
CourtVermont Supreme Court
PartiesIn re John A. SHUTTLE.

John G. Kristensen, Brattleboro, for plaintiff.

James M. Jeffords, Atty. Gen., and William T. Keefe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ.

KEYSER, Justice.

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and motion for bail made direct to this Court by petitioner, John A. Shuttle.

In June 1967 the petitioner entered a plea of guilty in Washington County Court to the charge of grand larceny. Sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation. On March 29, 1968 the petitioner was convicted of the violation of his probation and sentenced to serve not less than one nor more than two years in state prison. Mittimus issued on March 29, 1968. It is on this mittimus that petitioner is presently confined to state prison.

In 1963 petitioner was convicted of his pleas of guilty in Montpelier Municipal Court to four separate charges of breaking and entering and was sentenced on each charge to serve concurrent terms of five to seven years in state prison. The petitioner was granted a writ of habeas corpus on these 1963 convictions by order of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont dated March 3, 1969 on the ground that petitioner's constitutional rights were violated. The order of court provided for the release of the petitioner within sixty days unless retried during that time with effective counsel. See Shuttle v. Smith, 296 F.Supp. 1315 (1969). The petitioner is not being held in state prison under any mittimus issued on the 1963 convictions.

This proceeding is a matter involving a prisoner in custody under sentence and falls within the ambit of the post-conviction relief statutes, 13 V.S.A. §§ 7131-7135. Previous to amendment by No. 41, § 4, 12 V.S.A. § 3953, the Supreme Court had the power to entertain writs of habeas corpus to test the validity of a person's confinement after conviction of a criminal offense. The 1966 amendment removed this authority in such cases and placed it in the first instance in a superior judge or county court. The right of appeal to the Supreme Court is provided for whether the petition is brought for post-conviction relief or relief by way of habeas corpus.

The case of In re Arthur G. Mason, 126 Vt. 122, 223 A.2d 477, controls here. On the facts alleged in that case we held that in either situation, relief under the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Stewart, In re, 405-80
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 3 November 1981
    ...at 1062. Similarly, 13 V.S.A. § 7131 apportioned Vermont's habeas cases among the trial courts. See generally In re Shuttle, 127 Vt. 602, 603, 256 A.2d 28, 28 (1969). Thus, the modern statutes, including 13 V.S.A. § 7131, are venue devices, and are not designed to affect the availability of......
  • Bridge v. Woodstock Union High School Dist., 62-68
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 20 June 1969

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT