State v. Cady
| Decision Date | 22 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 2017-277,2017-277 |
| Citation | 2018 VT 61 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | State of Vermont v. Aaron Cady |
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions by email at: JUD.Reporter@vermont.gov or by mail at: Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801, of any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.
On Appeal from Superior Court, Caledonia Unit, Criminal Division
Maria L. Byford, Caledonia County Deputy State's Attorney, St. Johnsbury, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David C. Sleigh and Kyle L. Hatt of Sleigh Law, St. Johnsbury, for Defendant-Appellant.
PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Skoglund, Robinson, Eaton and Carroll, JJ.
¶ 1. EATON, J. Defendant Aaron Cady appeals the trial court's decision, rejecting his coram nobis petition challenging the validity of the plea colloquy preceding his conviction for driving under the influence, second offense (DUI-2). We conclude the writ of error coram nobis is unavailable to defendant; thus, we affirm, but on different grounds.
¶ 2. Defendant was convicted of his first DUI in 2006. In March 2012, defendant was convicted of DUI-2 following entry of a guilty plea. The 2012 plea colloquy for the DUI-2 included the following exchange:
¶ 3. The court found the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily and entered a guilty judgment. Defendant was sentenced and placed on probation. He did not appeal the DUI-2 conviction. After complying with all sentencing terms, the trial court discharged defendant from probation in October 2013.
¶ 4. In January 2017, defendant was charged with DUI-3. In June 2017, defendant filed a petition for coram nobis in the DUI-2 docket, alleging that the trial court failed to ensure that a factual basis existed for the plea under Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f) in that case. Defendant asserted that he would suffer collateral consequences because the DUI-2 conviction would be used to enhance the penalty for the pending DUI-3 charge. The trial court denied defendant's petition for coram nobis. It concluded that although coram nobis was available because defendant had no other remedy available to challenge the DUI-2 conviction, his plea colloquy nevertheless satisfied Rule 11(f). In so finding, the trial court concluded that the change-of-plea court sufficiently inquired into the facts as they relate to each element of the offense.
¶ 5. As a threshold matter, we must decide whether coram nobis is available to defendant to challenge the adequacy of the plea colloquy preceding his DUI-2 conviction based on the fact that the conviction may be used to enhance his sentence in his pending DUI-3 case.
¶ 6. Determining whether coram nobis is available to defendant is a matter of law that we review de novo. See State v. Sinclair, 2012 VT 47, ¶¶ 15-17, 191 Vt. 489, 49 A.3d 152 ().
¶ 7. The issue here is whether a defendant who is not currently suffering a collateral consequence of an enhanced sentence, but faces the threat of an enhanced sentence due to a prior conviction, may preemptively challenge the plea colloquy preceding the prior conviction using coram nobis. We conclude that because individuals, like defendant, can raise the adequacy of a plea colloquy in a prior conviction through post-conviction relief (PCR) proceedings once sentenced, coram nobis relief is not available.
¶ 8. Despite its ancient origins, this Court has recognized the continued existence of the writ of coram nobis in criminal proceedings.1 See id. ¶ 16 (). Traditionally used as a post-trial remedy to correct factual errors "affecting the validity and regularity of the judgment," id. ¶ 5 (quotation omitted), coram nobis provides the trial court with an opportunity to correct its own record "to prevent an injustice." In re Garceau, 124 Vt. 220, 221, 202 A.2d 266, 266 (1964) (per curiam). The writ is used only in extraordinary cases to correct errors when "necessary to achieve justice." State v. Rosenfield, 2016 VT 27, ¶ 24, 201 Vt. 383, 142 A.3d 1069 (Dooley, J., dissenting) (quotation omitted). Coram nobis relief is only available as a last resort and cannot supplant other forms of relief such as direct appeal, post-judgment motions, or PCRpetitions under 13 V.S.A. § 7131. Sinclair, 2012 VT 47, ¶ 16; United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512 (1954).
¶ 9. In State v. Sinclair, the defendant had a prior DUI conviction based on a guilty plea and filed a petition for coram nobis after the prior DUI was used to enhance a sentence being served at that time. We reiterated that although coram nobis remained a viable means for challenging criminal convictions, it was only to be used when "no other remedy" was available. Sinclair, 2012 VT 47, ¶ 16. We concluded that the defendant could not avail himself of coram nobis because he was " 'in custody' " by virtue of the enhanced sentence and therefore was eligible to file a PCR petition to challenge the adequacy of his plea colloquy in his predicate conviction. Id. ¶ 17 (quoting 13 V.S.A. § 7131).
¶ 10. Defendant's situation is similar in many ways to the situation faced by the defendant in Sinclair. Defendant is attempting to use coram nobis to challenge the adequacy of a plea colloquy in a prior DUI conviction because that DUI conviction will be used to enhance a subsequent sentence in the event of conviction on the current charge. Defendant's situation differs from that in Sinclair only in that he has not yet been convicted of the DUI-3 and is not yet serving the enhanced sentence.2 Because he is not yet serving the enhanced sentence, defendant alleges that he is not "in custody under sentence," 13 V.S.A. § 7131, for purposes of the PCR statute and therefore without any remedy except coram nobis.
¶ 11. We hold that this difference does not alter the outcome. Coram nobis is the remedy to be used when all other avenues of relief are closed. Defendant has another avenue to challenge the alleged error he seeks to remedy. We acknowledge that PCR relief is not immediately available, but it will be when, and if, defendant begins to suffer the collateral consequence of an enhanced conviction involving a custodial sentence. This holding is consistent with this Court'sdirection that PCR is the correct—and only—vehicle for defendants seeking to challenge the validity of a plea colloquy in a prior conviction that may be used to enhance a sentence in a subsequent charge. See Sinclair, 2012 VT 47, ¶ 17 (); State v. Boskind, 174 Vt. 184, 192, 807 A.2d 358, 365 (2002) ().
¶ 12. In Boskind, the defendant sought to challenge the adequacy of a plea colloquy in a prior conviction during the sentencing phase of the subsequent charge. We held that Rule 11(f) challenges to predicate convictions must be brought in PCR proceedings following conviction, rather than at the sentencing hearing on the enhanced offences. Boskind, 174 Vt. at 192, 807 A.2d at 365. In sum, Boskind established that "[i]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Taylor
...Whether coram nobis is available to defendant and defendant's argument under Kuhlmann are both issues of law subject to de novo review. Cady, 2018 VT 61, ¶ 6; State v. Mottolese, 2015 VT 81, ¶ 6, 199 Vt. 470. "[W]e need not adopt the court's rationale in affirming its conclusion." Hudson v.......