Case Title: State v. Baril

Citation: 

Docket Number: 88-032

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-02-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 88-032


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      District Court of Vermont
                                             Unit No. 2, Grand Isle Circuit

Darren Baril                                 February Term, 1990


Ronald F. Kilburn, J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Susan R. Harritt, Assistant Attorney
  General, and Gayle Middleton, Law Clerk (On the Brief), Montpelier, for
  plaintiff-appellee

Daniel Albert, Public Defender, St. Albans, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     ALLEN, C.J.   A jury convicted defendant of driving a motor vehicle
under the influence of alcohol (DUI).  The conviction was his second within
five years.  Accordingly, the trial court sentenced defendant as a second
offender pursuant to 23 V.S.A. { 1210(c).  Defendant appeals his sentence
and asks that the case be remanded for resentencing before a different
judge.  We affirm.
     In July 1986, defendant was involved in a two-car accident and was
subsequently charged with DUI in violation of 23 V.S.A. { 1201(a)(2), along
with a related traffic violation.  The information also alleged that
defendant had a prior conviction for drunk driving.  Before trial, defendant
moved to suppress the numerical breath test result.  The parties
subsequently stipulated that the breath test would not be referred to except
as rebuttal under certain limited circumstances.
     The jury found defendant guilty of DUI and the related traffic
offense.  Thereafter, the second phase of the bifurcated proceeding was held
to determine the accused's liability to enhanced punishment as a subsequent
offender in accordance with the procedures outlined in State v. Cameron, 126
Vt. 244,