State Of Vt. v. Brillon

Decision Date05 May 2010
Docket NumberNo. 10-157.,10-157.
PartiesSTATE of Vermontv.Michael BRILLON.
CourtVermont Supreme Court

996 A.2d 1187
2010 VT 48

STATE of Vermont
v.
Michael BRILLON.

No. 10-157.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

May 5, 2010.


996 A.2d 1188
Present: DOOLEY, SKOGLUND and BURGESS, JJ.
ENTRY ORDER

¶ 1. Defendant Michael Brillon appeals a decision of the Bennington District Court ordering him held without bail under 13 V.S.A. § 7553, which provides that a person may be held without bail when “charged with an offense punishable by life imprisonment,” as long as “the evidence of guilt is great.” Defendant is charged with second-degree domestic assault and faces a maximum penalty, if convicted, of life in prison based on his alleged status as a habitual offender. See 13 V.S.A. § 11 (permitting “imprisonment up to and including life” on conviction of fourth felony). We affirm.

¶ 2. The facts underlying defendant's appeal have twice been before this Court and need no exhaustive retelling here. In brief, defendant was charged with aggravated domestic assault in 2001 resulting from an incident wherein he allegedly struck his former girlfriend. This offense was charged as a felony because, if convicted, defendant could also have been found in violation of a condition of release previously imposed to protect the complainant. See 13 V.S.A. § 1044(a)(1) (enhancing domestic assault to second-degree aggravated domestic assault if committed in violation of conditions of specific court order). After being convicted at trial, defendant was sentenced to twelve to twenty years in prison. Defendant appealed. This Court overturned his conviction on the ground that the state was responsible for a significant portion of the delay in getting to trial, and thus his right to a speedy trial had been violated. State v. Brillon ( Brillon I), 2008 VT 35, 183 Vt. 475, 955 A.2d 1108. The United States Supreme Court reversed this ruling on

996 A.2d 1189
appeal Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 1283, 173 L.Ed.2d 231 (2009). On remand, we again reversed defendant's conviction and remanded for a new trial because the trial court had erred in denying defendant's request to bifurcate his original trial: holding one trial for the assault charge and a second for the aggravating element State v. Brillon ( Brillon II), 2010 VT 25, ¶ 12, --- Vt. ----, 995 A.2d 557.

¶ 3. At a bail review hearing on April 9, 2010, pending defendant's new trial, defendant argued that he was not a flight risk-a fact the State conceded. Because of his strong ties to the community and the fact that he had voluntarily surrendered himself to custody following the United States Supreme Court decision, he argued that he should be released on conditions into the custody of his sister who lives less than a mile from the Vermont border, in New York. To facilitate this, defendant offered to sign a waiver of extradition to ensure his return to Vermont or find an alternate residence in Vermont if the court required. His sister testified regarding the year defendant had spent living in her home-during the pendency of the appeal to the United States Supreme Court-and noted that he had not had any run-ins with the police. He also argued that, though he is facing the potential of life in prison, even if convicted he is much more likely to receive a lesser sentence and has already served eight years. Finally, defendant pointed out that, based on Brillon II, defendant has no current conviction on the underlying aggravated assault charge and so has no fixed sentence from which to flee.

¶ 4. The State countered that defendant's lack of a conviction or sentence for the underlying offense meant that defendant could potentially face a more lengthy sentence than he originally received. Moreover, the State argued that defendant had a history of failure to comply with conditions of release dating back to an obstruction of justice conviction from 1981 and, until the statute of limitations ran during the pendency of this case, faced similar...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Shores, SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 17-108.
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • May 4, 2017
    ...to the State, can fairly and reasonably convince a fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant is guilty." State v. Brillon, 2010 VT 48, ¶ 7, 188 Vt. 537, 996 A.2d 1187 (mem.) (quotation omitted). If the State meets this burden, a presumption in favor of incarceration arises,......
  • State v. Shores, SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2017-108
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • May 4, 2017
    ...to the State, can fairly and reasonably convince a fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant is guilty." State v. Brillon, 2010 VT 48, ¶ 7, 188 Vt. 537, 996 A.2d 1187 (mem.) (quotation omitted). If the State meets this burden, a presumption in favor of incarceration arises,......
  • State Of Vt. v. Devac, SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2010-458
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • December 28, 2010
    ...the defendant an opportunity to be heard, the trial court's discretion is "extremely broad," and our review is "strictly limited." State v. Brillon, 2010 VT 48, ¶7, __Vt.__, 996 A.2d 1187 (mem.) (quotations omitted). In determining whether the evidence of guilt is great, we use the standard......
  • State v. Baker, 15–119.
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • April 3, 2015
    ...to be heard, the trial court's discretion is “extremely broad,” and our review under § 7553 is “strictly limited.” State v. Brillon, 2010 VT 48, ¶ 7, 188 Vt. 537, 996 A.2d 1187 (mem.) (quotation omitted). With these standards in mind, we affirm the trial court's holding. ¶ 3. The trial cour......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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