State v. Myott
| Decision Date | 25 September 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 452-79,452-79 |
| Citation | 140 Vt. 267,436 A.2d 781 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Vermont v. David E. MYOTT. |
John J. Easton, Jr., Atty. Gen., Edwin L. Hobson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Richard Winslow Foster, Law Clerk, Montpelier, on the brief, for plaintiff.
James L. Morse, Defender Gen., William A. Nelson, Appellate Defender, and George Spangler, Law Clerk, Montpelier, on the brief, for defendant.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and LARROW, BILLINGS, HILL and UNDERWOOD, JJ.
This case comes before the Court on appeal from the Vermont District Court, Unit No. 3, Lamoille Circuit, where the defendant pled guilty and was convicted of two counts of breaking and entering and two counts of petty larceny. The guilty pleas and convictions were expressly conditioned on his obtaining review in this Court of the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence.
Both the appellant, through his counsel the Defender General, and the appellee State of Vermont, through the Attorney General, argue in their briefs for the adoption, by decision of this Court, of the practice of conditional plea bargaining. They maintain that a conditional plea of guilty will preserve for the defendant the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, while avoiding the costs of trial, where trial would serve no useful purpose because of the inevitability of appeal. It is to be noted that this objective is already met in most cases by V.R.A.P. 5, which provides for review of legal issues which may be dispositive of litigation in progress.
Although we do not question the inherent constitutionality of conditional plea bargaining, Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283, 95 S.Ct. 886, 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975), we decline to adopt its practice in the courts of Vermont by our decision here. The proposed procedure partakes of declaratory judgment and advisory opinion without benefit of enactment or supporting rule, and as a significant deviation from approved practice, must be rejected as unauthorized. In re Constitutionality of House Bill 88, 115 Vt. 524, 64 A.2d 169 (1949).
It is the law of this state that a plea of guilty operates as a waiver of previous procedural shortcomings, insofar as such defects are subject to waiver. In re Murray, 131 Vt. 4, 7, 298 A.2d 835, 837 (1972); In re Dobson, 125 Vt. 165, 166, 212 A.2d 620, 621 (1965). As a result, procedures for plea agreement are carefully outlined in the Rules of Criminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Gates
-
Corti v. Lussier
...a significant departure from established policy should be made only after full consideration in our rule-making process. State v. Myott, 140 Vt. ---, 436 A.2d 781 (1981). We did not hold in Emrick, as the appellants apparently contend, that the taking of notes by jurors is inherently prejud......
-
State v. Armstrong, 85-513
...of guilty operates as a waiver of previous procedural shortcomings, insofar as such defects are subject to waiver." State v. Myott, 140 Vt. 267, 268, 436 A.2d 781, 782 (1981). This rule of waiver also applies to claims that the prosecution obtained evidence unlawfully. 1 C. Wright, Federal ......
-
State v. Thomas, s. 439-80
...the ordinary low and high water levels. The state's attorney vigorously opposed this procedure. Our recent decision in State v. Myott, 140 Vt. ---, 436 A.2d 781 (1981), controls our disposition of this case. In Myott we declined to adopt the practice of conditional plea bargaining in the co......