State v. Rodriguez

• Citation: 2023 VT 59
• Docket Number: 22-AP-260
• Decision Date: 09 November 2023
• Parties: State of Vermont v. Edwin Rodriguez
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Vermont

1

2023 VT 59

State of Vermont
v.
Edwin Rodriguez

No. 22-AP-260

Supreme Court of Vermont

November 9, 2023

On Appeal from Superior Court, Rutland Unit, Criminal Division David R. Fenster, J.

Ian C. Sullivan, Rutland County State's Attorney, and Arthur O. Brown, Deputy State's Attorney, Rutland, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Matthew Valerio, Defender General, and A. Alexander Donn, Appellate Defender, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Eaton, Carroll and Cohen, JJ., and Dooley, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

COHEN, J.

¶ 1. Defendant appeals from the criminal division's denial of his motion for sentence reconsideration. Defendant argues that the trial court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors and improperly relied on prior uncharged conduct. We affirm.

¶ 2. In December 2018, defendant was charged with aggravated domestic assault under 13 V.S.A. § 1043(a) and related criminal counts for physically assaulting complainant, who was his then-romantic partner. After defendant pleaded not guilty, the trial court ordered defendant to be held without bail.

2

¶ 3. While awaiting trial, defendant remained incarcerated throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and unsuccessfully sought to be released on bail based on health concerns arising from conditions of his confinement. At a change-of-plea hearing in December 2021, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated domestic assault in the first degree pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 1043(a)(1) and one count of domestic assault pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 1042.^[1] As part of that plea agreement, the State agreed to a cap of twelve years of incarceration.

¶ 4. In advance of his sentencing hearing, defendant submitted a sentencing memorandum in which he sought a sentence of four-to-eight years, all suspended but four years to serve, with a ten-year term of probation with certain conditions. Defendant referenced several mitigating factors in support of his proposed sentence. He asserted that his lengthy pretrial incarceration consisted of punitive conditions such as constant lockdowns, extended periods of isolation, and deficient medical treatment after contracting COVID-19. Defendant also cited to his work as a law librarian during his pretrial detention, letters of support from his supervisor and mother, and a psychological evaluation by a clinical psychologist identifying defendant as an excellent candidate for behavioral therapy and counseling. Defendant stated his desire to relocate to Massachusetts where he could rely on familial support from his mother, an educator, and sister, a nurse. He further sought to have supervision of his post-incarceration sentence transferred to Massachusetts.

¶ 5. In April 2022, the trial court held a sentencing hearing during which it took evidence and heard from three witnesses. First among those witnesses was defendant's expert, a clinical psychologist, who testified about defendant's candidacy for cognitive behavioral therapy and supportive counseling. A Department of Corrections worker testified briefly about treatment

3

options in the correctional setting. Finally, complainant testified at length about her history with defendant, including the toll of his physically and mentally abusive conduct.

¶ 6. In her testimony, complainant detailed three instances of prior violence she suffered at the hands of defendant. In one instance, defendant threw an object at complainant, forced her back into the house, and placed her in a bedroom with her dog. He then told complainant that, during the five minutes it would take for him to retrieve a pipe, she needed to decide whether she or the dog would die. In another episode, defendant broke into the home of complainant's mother where complainant was sleeping, woke complainant up, and proceeded to strangle her. Complainant testified about a third event where defendant struck complainant with such force that he broke complainant's orbital socket. She testified about the resulting trauma from defendant's violence and the reasons why she did not report those prior instances to police. Counsel for defendant cross-examined complainant about her testimony on defendant's prior unreported and uncharged violent conduct, as well as other matters.

¶ 7. During a colloquy regarding defendant's objections to the presentence investigation report, the trial court acknowledged the State's request that the court independently evaluate the evidence presented by complainant regarding prior uncharged conduct for sentencing purposes. Defense counsel agreed to that procedure. During closing arguments, defense counsel reiterated the mitigating factors set forth in defendant's sentencing memorandum. Among those were defendant's childhood trauma, his familial support in Massachusetts, his candidacy for behavioral therapy, and his work during pretrial detention. Defense counsel also asked the court to consider the circumstances of defendant's pretrial detention during the COVID-19 pandemic.

¶ 8. After hearing defendant's statement, the trial court evaluated the pertinent factors to determine an appropriate sentence. In doing so, it considered not only defendant's "loving and supportive family," but also his "significant prior history of criminal convictions" including kidnapping, aggravated assault, and other offenses. While the court noted the supportive letter

4

from defendant's work supervisor, it also considered disciplinary reports filed against defendant during previous instances of incarceration. The court also recognized defendant's acceptance of responsibility and remorse for his conduct. And it acknowledged the need to consider defendant's lengthy period of pretrial incarceration during the pandemic, which "was unlike anything that we have ever seen." The court also recounted complainant's testimony of defendant's "lengthy history of violence against her" and the three prior uncharged incidents that complainant described in detail. It found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that those three incidents occurred.

¶ 9. After weighing these factors, the trial court concluded that a split sentence as sought by defendant was "simply not appropriate under the circumstances." The court thus imposed an effective sentence of nine to twelve years of imprisonment.

¶ 10. Defendant timely filed a motion for sentence reconsideration under 13 V.S.A....