Case Title: In re Cohen

Citation: 161 Vt. 432, 640 A.2d 34

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-01-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN_RE_COHEN.92-268; 161 Vt. 432; 640 A.2d 34

[Opinion Filed 21-Jan-1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 08-Mar-1994]

 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 92-268


 In re Bruce Cohen                            Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
                                              Orleans Superior Court

                                              October Term, 1993


 David T. Suntag, J.

 Robert Appel, Defender General, and Anna Saxman, Appellate Attorney,
   Montpelier, for petitioner-appellant

 Thomas M. Kelley, Drug Prosecutor, Montpelier, for respondent-appellee


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      GIBSON, J.   Petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-
 conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.  We affirm.
      Petitioner pled guilty to possession of marijuana, and subsequently was
 convicted of cultivation of marijuana following a ten-day jury trial.  This
 Court affirmed the conviction.  See State v. Cohen, 157 Vt. 654, 599 A.2d 330 (1991) (mem.).  Petitioner then sought post-conviction relief, pursuant
 to 13 V.S.A. { 7131, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.  The trial
 court denied the petition, and petitioner appeals, claiming the court erred
 by concluding that counsel's representation was not ineffective regarding
 (1) his failure to challenge a warrantless air search, (2) his failure to
 object to the prosecutor's closing remarks, and (3) his investigation of the
 facts.  Petitioner also claims the court misinterpreted our holding in State

 

 v. Dupaw, 134 Vt. 451,