State v. Chamberlain, 187-73
| Decision Date | 02 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 187-73,187-73 |
| Citation | 310 A.2d 30,131 Vt. 549 |
| Parties | STATE of Vermont v. Allen CHAMBERLAIN, Jr., et al. * |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Kimberly B. Cheney, Atty. Gen., and Robert W. Gagnon, State's Atty., for the State.
Robert J. Kurrle, Montpelier, for defendants.
Before SHANGRAW, C. J., and BARNEY, SMITH, KEYSER and DALEY, JJ.
This is an appeal pursuant to V.R.A.P. 5(b). It concerns the application of Administrative Order No. 17 to certain cases pending in the District Court of Vermont, Unit No. 5, Washington Circuit. The administrative order was a directive to trial courts relating to the dismissal for want of prosecution of criminal cases on the docket for more than six months without being acted upon. The appealing parties here are respondents who have sought to require such dismissal on their own behalf by filing motions to dismiss. The motions were denied below, and the issue is now sought to be heard here. The issues presented are certified to this Court as follows:
'1. If the prosecution fails, after the time period of six months has elapsed from the date of arrest, to file an application for good cause and notice to the defendant-respondent seeking an extension of time for trial, does Administrative Order No. 17 require dismissal of said criminal action?
2. As a secondary consideration does the fact that the State claims that it at all times has been ready for trial within that six month period, without notifying anyone thereof, in any way or manner change the application of Administrative Order No. 17 in this situation?'
It must be understood that Administrative Order No. 17 operates through the authorization given this Court as the administrative head of the judicial branch. It is part of the internal operating procedures set down by this Court with respect to the handling of cases and processing of caseloads. Responsibility for carrying out the order rests with the trial court, subject to administrative accounting here, rather than appellate review at the demand of a respondent. State v. Perry, 131 Vt. --, 306 A.2d 110 (1973). As such, it confers no additional rights upon individual respondents, nor deprives them of any, insofar as insistence on compliance with its provisions is concerned.
Its implementation lies entirely within the discretionary authority of the trial court and, although the trial court may properly dismissed such overage cases, it is not compelled to do so if it is satisfied that sound reasons in justification of the delay are present to sustain its refusal. In short, the claims of a particular respondent under the doctrine of speedy trial are not predetermined by the operation of Administrative Order No. 17, but must be raised and decided, as heretofore, on a case-by-case basis, according to applicable law and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brillon
...Keith, 160 Vt. at 266, 628 A.2d at 1253. Tracking the citations of that standard to previous cases leads us to State v. Chamberlin, 131 Vt. 549, 551, 310 A.2d 30, 32 (1973), wherein we held that implementing Administrative Order No. 5's predecessor rule was "entirely within the discretionar......
-
State v. Angelucci
...to trial not brought about by the defendant. The governing doctrine for the circumstances in this case are found in State v. Chamberlin, 131 Vt. 549, 551, 310 A.2d 30 (1973). Unlike that case, this defendant was in confinement recognized in § 2 of Administrative Order No. 5 by a shortening ......
-
State v. Venman
...of any procedural or substantive rights." State v. Snide, 144 Vt. 436, 441, 479 A.2d 139, 142 (1984) (citing State v. Chamberlin, 131 Vt. 549, 550-51, 310 A.2d 30, 32 (1973)). As we stated in Snide, "[a]lthough criminal cases should be prepared and ready for trial within six months of an ar......
-
State v. Roy, 359-80
...custody be brought to trial within 90 days of arraignment, but the rule is discretionary with the trial court, see State v. Chamberlin, 131 Vt. 549, 551, 310 A.2d 30 (1973). In the case at bar, defendant was arraigned on August 24, 1979, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial on......