State v. Lawrence, 91-75
| Decision Date | 17 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-75,91-75 |
| Citation | 340 A.2d 67,133 Vt. 330 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Vermont v. Paul LAWRENCE. |
Francis X. Murray, Chittenden, County State's Atty., Burlington, for plaintiff.
John J. Welch, Jr., Rutland, for defendant.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and SMITH, DALEY and LARROW, JJ.
This is a petition for release under conditions pending the disposition of an appeal, brought under Rule 9(b), V.R.A.P. The defendant is in execution, in that following his conviction, the trial court terminated bail and refused to stay execution of the sentence. Being in execution, no constitutional right to bail exists. In re Shuttle, 131 Vt. 457, 306 A.2d 667 (1973). Under Rule 9(b), the matter is here for original determination by this Court, and not as an appeal from the trial court. The decision must be made on what is before this tribunal.
Even so, the disposition made by the lower court is before us as part of the record, and is entitled to great weight in the deliberations here. Where the discretionary power to put a sentence into immediate execution is exercised, it is to be presumed that it was only done after reflection and a fair weighing of the interests of the defendant and the State of Vermont. Thus it should not be lightly put aside or overturned by this Court and will be supported in the absence of concerns running sufficiently counter to its justification.
But, under this Rule 9(b), there is a duty to examine the matter anew and reach an independent judgment on the matter in the light of the posture of the litigation, the interests of all parties and the policies enjoined upon us by the Legislature in the provisions of the bail statutes.
In this case, a number of considerations running counter to the disposition below appear, including at least two of great weight and out of the ordinary pattern. They lead us to the conclusion that release upon certain strict conditions is appropriate in this matter.
The defendant has been convicted of perjury, a non-violent crime, but involving the conviction of many other persons for drug offenses on his allegedly false testimony. This circumstance has led to special stringency in his confinement, for his own protection. He is being detained in what amounts to a solitary cell in a detention center nearly one hundred miles from his counsel and from his parents. Although our concern must base itself on the circumstances of this pending appeal, it is a fact that the extensive litigation pending in associated suits, as well as the nature of this present case, involve far more than the ordinary need to consult with his counsel. An offer has been made to transport him to the Woodstock Correctional Center on two days' notice for conference purposes. This is a commendable suggestion and, in many cases, might be adequate.
But in the light of all the aspects of this matter, an alternate resolution seems more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moquin, 178-75.
...execution and not entitled to bail as a constitutional right, State v. Woodmansee, 132 Vt. 558, 326 A.2d 172 (1974); State v. Lawrence, 133 Vt. 330, 331, 340 A.2d 67 (1975), valid concern for his right to appellate review requires that such review not be inordinately delayed. In the event o......
-
State v. Lawrence, 91-75.
...claim to be entitled to release on bail. In this case, such a release was granted at the request of the defendant. See State v. Lawrence, 133 Vt. 330, 340 A.2d 67 (1975). Thus the argument as to loss of "good time" credit is unpersuasive to establish This is not to say that transcript delay......
-
State v. Ryan, 120-76
...with Bonnie Lee King in violation of a restriction placed upon her. The posture of this case is similar to the case of State v. Lawrence, 133 Vt. 330, 340 A.2d 67 (1975). This defendant is also in execution and not entitled to bail as of right. The mandates of State v. Pray, 133 Vt. 537, 34......
- State v. McGrail, 27-75