Case Title: State v. Thompson

Citation: 162 Vt. 532, 650 A.2d 139

Docket Number: 92-036

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-06-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_THOMPSON.92-036; 162 Vt. 532; 650 A.2d 139

[Opinion Filed June 3, 1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied September 6, 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. 92-036


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 2, Chittenden District

 Warren Thompson                              December Term, 1993



 Matthew I. Katz, J.

 Scot Kline, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hall Johnson,
  Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee

 Robert Appel, Defender General, William A. Nelson, Appellate Attorney, and
  Brad Powers (Law Clerk), Montpelier, for defendant-appellant



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      MORSE, J.    Defendant pled nolo contendere to two counts of sexual
 assault, 13 V.S.A. {{ 3252(a)(1)(A), 3253(a)(7) (aggravated), reserving the
 right to appeal the court's denial of his motion to determine his competency
 to stand trial.  V.R.Cr.P. 11(a)(2) (conditional plea).  He also claims on
 appeal, for the first time in these proceedings, that his pleas were
 accepted in violation of V.R.Cr.P. 11(c)(1) and (2) because he was not
 informed of, nor did the court determine whether he understood, the nature
 of the crimes charged and their penalties.  We do not reach the merits of
 defendant's unpreserved claim of error.  We hold the competency

 

 determination was supported by the evidence.  Accordingly, the judgment of
 conviction is affirmed.
                                     I.
      In State v. Doleszney, 139 Vt. 80, 81,