Case Title: In re Hemingway

Citation: 168 Vt. 569, 716 A.2d 806

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-06-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Hemingway  (96-565); 168 Vt. 569; 716 A.2d 806

[Filed 5-Jun-1998]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 96-565

                             FEBRUARY TERM, 1997

In re Ronald Hemingway          }     APPEALED FROM:
                                }
                                }
                                }     Franklin Superior Court
                                }
                                }
                                }     DOCKET NO. S31-95Fc

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant appeals from a decision of the Franklin Superior Court
  denying his petition for post-conviction relief, which alleged (1)
  petitioner was denied due process when the district court accepted his plea
  of nolo contendere without further assessing his mental competency and, (2)
  ineffective assistance of counsel.  We affirm.

       On June 9, 1993, petitioner was arraigned on multiple criminal
  charges: one count of simple assault, two counts of felony kidnapping, one
  count of violating a relief from abuse order, one count of violating the
  conditions of his release, and four counts of violating the conditions of
  his probation.  With assistance of court-assigned public defense counsel,
  petitioner pled not guilty to the charges of violating his probation, but
  exercised his right to delay for twenty-four hours entering pleas on the
  other charges.  During the hearing, both of petitioner's lawyers observed
  that he appeared emotional, depressed, and suicidal, and out of concern for
  his safety, requested the court to order a mental health evaluation.  The
  court granted the request.  An evaluator with Franklin-Grand Isle Mental
  Health Services conducted a mental health evaluation and suggested that
  petitioner be placed on suicide watch.

       Petitioner appeared in court the next day to enter not guilty pleas to
  all remaining charges.  Petitioner's counsel also requested the court to
  order an examination of petitioner's competency to stand trial.  The court
  granted the request and subsequently appointed Dr. William Woodruff to
  conduct the exam.  Dr. Woodruff evaluated petitioner on June 14 and
  concluded he was competent to stand trial.

       At a hearing on June 16, 1993, both petitioner and his counsel
  represented to the court their belief that petitioner was competent to
  stand trial, and indicated their concurrence with Dr. Woodruff's finding to
  that effect.  Petitioner was then arraigned on two additional charges for
  obstruction of justice, to which he pled not guilty.  No further competency
  evaluations were requested by the defense.

       Petitioner then reached an agreement with the State in which he agreed
  to change his not guilty pleas to nolo contendere on the charges of
  kidnapping, obstruction of justice, burglary, violation of conditions of
  release, unlawful mischief and violation of probation.  In return, the
  State agreed to dismiss the second charge of kidnapping, violation of
  relief from abuse order, and simple assault.  The State also agreed not to
  pursue other possible charges.

       On June 18, 1993, petitioner appeared before the district court for a
  change of plea hearing.  Dr. Woodruff's report, stating that petitioner was
  competent to stand trial, was read

 

  into the record, and defense counsel again agreed with Dr. Woodruff's
  finding.  After engaging in a lengthy colloquy with the petitioner in which
  the court asked and considered petitioner's answers to a series of
  questions and advised petitioner of his constitutional rights, the court
  accepted petitioner's pleas pursuant to the agreement.

       In 1995, petitioner filed for post-conviction relief claiming that (1)
  the district court denied him due process by accepting his nolo pleas
  without sufficiently resolving whether he was competent to enter the pleas,
  and (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel.  The superior court
  found both of petitioner's claims to be without merit.  According to the
  court, "the district court had ample reason to believe that any earlier
  doubts regarding petitioner's competency had been adequately resolved prior
  to his plea and sentencing."  The court also found that petitioner had
  failed to establish any deficiency in the representation provided by his
  attorneys.

       Petitioner appeals, reiterating essentially the same two arguments he
  advanced in his petition for post-conviction relief; namely, that his
  mental competency was inadequately addressed, and that his counsel had been
  ineffective.(FN1)   We find no error in the superior court's denial of
  post-conviction relief and thus affirm.

       Post-conviction relief under 13 V.S.A.  7131-7137 will be granted
  when a petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that one
  or more fundamental errors rendered his conviction defective.  See State v.
  Bristol, 159 Vt. 334, 337, 618 A.2d 1290, 1291 (1992). Post-conviction
  relief is available when fundamental error is found in a court's acceptance
  of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.  See In re Bentley, 144 Vt. 404,
  410,