State v. Young, No. 05-398.
| Docket Nº | No. 05-398. |
| Citation | 2007 VT 30, 925 A.2d 1016 |
| Case Date | April 19, 2007 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
v.
Tracy YOUNG.
[925 A.2d 1017]
Present: REIBER, C.J., and DOOLEY, JOHNSON, SKOGLUND, JJ., and DAVENPORT, Superior Judge, Specially Assigned.
¶ 1. Defendant appeals a sentence imposed by the district court. He contends the court erred in failing to award certain credit for time served. Because defendant failed to pursue an administrative remedy with the Commissioner of Corrections and review by the superior court under V.R.C.P. 75, we conclude that the appeal must be dismissed.
¶ 2. The material facts may be briefly summarized. In May 2003, defendant was sentenced on four felony charges to a term of two to eight years, all suspended except for time served, and placed on probation. On February 4, 2004, defendant was arrested and held without bail for several violations of probation (VOPs). On July 9, 2004, defendant was sentenced on several new motor vehicle offenses and the violation of probation charges. The court imposed a new sentence of four to sixty months on the motor vehicle offenses with credit for time served since February 4, 2004, and ordered that defendant be continued on probation on the underlying felony offenses.
¶ 3. New violation of probation petitions were filed in December 2004 and August 2005. At the hearing on the VOP charges in late August 2005, defendant requested that, with respect to any sentence imposed, he be awarded credit for time served between February 4 and July 9, 2004. In a written decision dated August 30, 2005, the court ruled that the computation of any credit for time served was for the Department of Corrections, and scheduled a sentencing hearing for September 1, 2005. At the hearing, the court revoked defendant's probation and imposed the underlying terms with "credit for time served according to law." This appeal followed.
¶ 4. Defendant contends that the court erred in failing to award him the
requested credit for time served. As the trial court observed, however, the DOC is charged with the responsibility to calculate "the effect of any credit for time served as ordered by the court pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7031." 13 V.S.A. § 7044. Section 7031(b) states that the "court shall give the person credit toward service of his sentence for any days spent in custody in connection with the offense." Sections 7031 and 7044, read together, do not require the trial court to calculate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Aubuchon, 13–140.
...¶ 8. As an initial matter, we reject the State's procedural arguments. Regarding the latter argument, the State relies upon State v. Young, 2007 VT 30, 181 Vt. 603, 925 A.2d 1016 (mem.), to support its argument that defendant pursued the wrong avenue of relief in this appeal. In Young, the ......
-
State v. Sommer, 09–417.
...may file a grievance with the commissioner and thereafter seek review in superior court under V.R.C.P. 75. State v. Young, 181 Vt. 603, 925 A.2d 1016 (2007); see also Martel v. Lanman, 171 Vt. 547, 759 A.2d 65 (2000). The District Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to address t......
-
State v. Sommer, 2009-417
...its discretion in deferring to the DOC. ¶ 7. The governing precedent for determining the options of the trial court is State v. Young, 2007 VT 30, 181 Vt. 603, 925 A.2d 1016 (mem.). Young is based on facts similar to those before us in this case. The decision attempts to reconcile the Commi......