Case Title: State v. Williams

Citation: 160 Vt. 615, 627 A.2d 1254

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1993-02-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
EO.91-611; 160 Vt. 615; 627 A.2d 1254


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 91-611

                             FEBRUARY TERM, 1993


 State of Vermont                  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                   }
                                   }
      v.                           }          District Court of Vermont,
                                   }          Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
                                   }
 Robert Williams                   }
                                   }          DOCKET NO. 3950-9-91CnCr


              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

      Defendant appeals from a conviction of driving with a suspended
 license (DLS) in violation of 23 V.S.A. { 674.  He argues that he was
 charged, tried, and convicted under the wrong statute.  We reverse the
 conviction and remand the case for imposition of judgment on the lesser
 included offense and for resentencing.

      Prior to its amendment in 1991, { 674 set forth maximum fines and terms
 of imprisonment, based on the number of prior offenses, for operating a
 motor vehicle with a suspended license.  The reason for the underlying
 suspension was not relevant.  Effective July 1, 1991, the Legislature
 amended the former { 674 by creating two separate sections, {{ 674 and 676.
 Among other changes, the amended { 674 made DLS subject to criminal
 penalties only when the underlying suspension resulted from a violation of
 certain enumerated statutory sections.  If the underlying suspension was
 "for any reason" other than a violation of the sections listed in amended {
 674(a), an operator commits a civil traffic violation under { 676 and is
 subject only to civil penalties.  Thus, under the amended statute, the
 reason for the underlying suspension determines whether the offender will be
 subject to criminal or civil penalties.

      The alleged violation took place on August 1, 1991, one month after the
 amended { 674 took effect.  The information stated that defendant operated a
 motor vehicle while his license was suspended in violation of { 674 but it
 did not state the reason for the underlying suspension.  The information
 also noted six prior DLS convictions and a maximum penalty that mirrored the
 maximum penalty permitted under the former { 674 for a fourth or subsequent
 offense.  Defendant's motion in limine, which sought to exclude all testi-
 mony concerning prior DLS convictions and the reason for the suspension in
 effect on August 1, 1991, was granted.  Defense counsel stated to the court
 on the record that the parties had agreed to stipulate that defendant was
 under suspension on August 1, 1991, and that he had more than four prior
 DLS convictions, all of which were valid.  The stipulation did not identify
 the reason for any of the previous suspensions.  No evidence was presented
 at trial regarding the reason defendant's license was under suspension on
 August 1, 1991, and the court's jury charge made no mention of the reason
 for the underlying suspension.  Apparently, both parties and the court
 proceeded as if defendant were being charged under the former { 674.  The
 jury found defendant guilty, and the court sentenced him to a term of 30 to
 60 days imprisonment, which was stayed pending appeal.

      Defendant may argue for the first time on appeal that the information
 was fatally defective.  State v. Bradley, 145 Vt. 492, 494,