State v. Cross
| Decision Date | 07 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 392-81,392-81 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Vermont v. Leon Walter CROSS, Jr. |
Charles D. Carrington, Danby, for defendant-appellant.
Before BARNEY, C.J., and BILLINGS, HILL, UNDERWOOD and PECK, JJ.
Defendant Leon Cross, Jr., appeals from an order of the Bennington District Court denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to the charge of simple assault. 13 V.S.A. § 1023(a)(1).
On June 10, 1981, defendant entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution. The agreement provided that in return for a plea of guilty to the charge (1) a presentence report would be ordered, V.R.Cr.P. 32(c)(1), (2) the State would concur with any recommendations in the report, (3) if the report recommended confinement, the State would recommend no more than three months to serve, and (4) defendant's attorney could argue for a lesser sentence than any recommended in the report. The trial court conducted a Rule 11 hearing on the agreement, V.R.Cr.P. 11, and, with the concurrence of defendant's attorney, stated it intended to "take a provisional plea," thereby permitting it to reject any recommendations and allow defendant to stand trial if after reviewing the presentence report it determined the agreement inappropriate.
The presentence report was filed with the court on July 31, 1981, and it contained the recommendation that defendant not be granted probation because of his history of aggressive behavior. On August 7, 1981, defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to V.R.Cr.P. 32. Although the motion did not specify its grounds, at hearing defendant offered several grounds: that he was entitled to withdraw the plea as a matter of right, that he believed the presentence report was erroneous, and that he was working and would lose his job if incarcerated. The court denied the motion stating defendant "failed to show any fair and just reason for the withdrawal of his plea," and entered a judgment of guilty to the charge.
At sentencing, the State recommended defendant be sentenced for a period of 6-12 months, all suspended except 3 months to serve. The trial court adopted the State's recommended sentence. Defendant appeals, asserting that the court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, and that it imposed a sentence beyond the scope of the agreement.
Defendant's first argument is devoid of merit. The trial court, although using the term "provisional plea," clearly accepted the plea bargain in the manner required by V.R.Cr.P. 11(e)(3). Accordingly, the propriety of the court's denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his plea is governed by V.R.Cr.P. 32(d). Since the motion was made before sentence was imposed, "the court may permit withdrawal of the plea if the defendant shows any fair and just reason and that reason substantially outweighs any prejudice which would result to the state from the withdrawal of the plea." Id.
The trial court applied the standards of Rule 32(d) and concluded that defendant failed to show any fair and just reason for permitting him to withdraw his plea of guilty. We believe this decision was within the sound discretion of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncil v. Kaufman
...464 So.2d 1032 (La.App.1985); State v. Boone, 444 A.2d 438 (Me.1982); State v. Bryant, 378 N.W.2d 108 (Minn.App.1985); State v. Cross, 142 Vt. 44, 451 A.2d 1149 (1982). Moreover, a trial court's decision on a motion under Rule 32(d) will be disturbed only if the court has abused its discret......
-
State v. Belanus
...Although withdrawal of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is within the discretion of the sentencing judge, State v. Cross, 142 Vt. 44, 46, 451 A.2d 1149, 1150 (1982); State v. Scelza, 134 Vt. 385, 386, 359 A.2d 660, 660 (1976), that discretion is not absolute. It must be exercised liberal......
-
State v. Fisk, 93-545
...withdrawal of the plea." V.R.Cr.P. 32(d). The trial judge has discretion when deciding whether to allow withdrawal. State v. Cross, 142 Vt. 44, 46, 451 A.2d 1149, 1150 (1982). The test is an objective one; if defendant's justification for withdrawal is unreasonable under the circumstances, ......
-
State v. Durham, SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2014-003
...We are constrained to agree. It is the defendant's burden, to be sure, to demonstrate facts warranting withdrawal of a plea. State v. Cross, 142 Vt. 44, 46 (1982). However, for the purpose of rulingPage 2on the motion without an evidentiary hearing, the trial court here accepted as true def......