Trivento v. Smith, 41-70
| Decision Date | 17 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 41-70,41-70 |
| Citation | 129 Vt. 346,278 A.2d 722 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | Edward TRIVENTO v. Robert G. SMITH, Warden. |
Frederick J. Glover, Ludlow, for plaintiff.
Frank G. Mahady, State's Atty., and Paul F. Hudson, Deputy State's Atty., for defendant.
Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ.
This is an appeal from a denial of the plaintiff's Petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus by the Windsor County Court. The plaintiff is presently confined in the State Prison in Windsor as a result of a plea of guilty to manslaughter on May 24, 1967, in the Chittenden County Court. The plaintiff brought his petition, pro se, and was not represented by counsel until his appeal to this Court. The thrust of the petition is that the plaintiff's present commitment under the statute for the commitment of sexual psychopaths is illegal as being in violation of the 'Due Process' clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as to Chapter 1, Article 10, of the Constitution of the State of Vermont.
The petitioner neglected to annex a copy of the process under which he claimed to be unlawfully detained.
'When the imprisonment or restraint is by virtue of a warrant or other process, a copy thereof shall be annexed to the complaint, or it shall appear that copy thereof has been demanded and refused, or that for sufficient reason a demand of such copy could not be made.' 12 V.S.A. § 3954.
The Windsor County Court denied the petition for noncompliance with this provision of the statute. This disposition foreclosed any answer by the defendant to the question of law and fact which the petitioner seeks to present in his application.
Persons who have been committed under the provisions of 18 V.S.A. §§ 2811-2816 are in custody within the contemplation of 13 V.S.A. §§ 7131-7137. Therefore a petition under those sections may have to precede any application for habeas corpus, as provided in 13 V.S.A. § 7136. The prisoner's address to the lower court is not thereby defective, but may, under 13 V.S.A. § 7132, be treated as such a petition for review. See In Re Bashaw, decided at the April Term of this Court. This procedure does not require that a copy of the order of confinement be filed with such petition for review. Counsel, if assigned under 13 V.S.A. § 7137, can assist the prisoner in any amendments necessary to the petition to make it technically sound and more clearly delineate the issues...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- American Museum of Fly Fishing, Inc. v. Town of Manchester
-
Trivento v. Commissioner of Corrections
...could be transferred by order to the appropriate court for a hearing on the petition for post-conviction relief. Cf. Trivento v. Smith, 129 Vt. 346, 348, 278 A.2d 722 (1971). However, Parts II and III of this opinion, in which we address appellant's substantive claims, explain why such tran......
- Trustees of Vermont Wild Land Foundation v. Town of Pittsford, 342-78
-
Trivento, In re, 127-72
...cause to the Chittenden County Court for consideration as a petition for review pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7131 et seq. Trivento v. Smith, 129 Vt. 346, 278 A.2d 722 (1971). On August 18, 1971, the Chittenden County Colurt appointed Attorney David L. Cleary, Esq., to represent the appellant. At......