Case Title: Unnamed Prisoners v. Maranville

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-04-01T00:00:00Z

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. 90-188
 
 
Un-named Prisoners of the Temporary     Supreme Court
Waterbury Correctional Facility
                                        On Appeal from:
     v.                                 Washington Superior Court
 
 
Stephen Maranville, Superintendent
of the Temporary Waterbury              April Term, 1990
Correctional Facility, individually
and as agent of Joseph Patrissi,
Commissioner, Department of
Corrections
 
 
Alden T. Bryan, J.
 
Daniel J. Lynch of Lynch & Hadden, St. Albans, for plaintiffs-appellants
 
Edward D. Sutton, Chittenden County Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington,
   for defendants-appellees
 
 
PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson and Morse, JJ.
 
 
 
     PER CURIAM.   Petitioners filed for a writ of habeas corpus in superior
court seeking release from incarceration following a district court's
orders denying them bail.  Charged with unlawful trespass arising from
abortion protests, petitioners had declined to provide information about
their identities in district court.  On March 30, 1990, the superior court
ordered that petitioners be released on April 4, 1990 unless the district
court by that date set forth its reasons for holding them without bail.  The
superior court stated:
          The District Court should then fashion what it perceives
          to be sufficient under 13 V.S.A. { 7554 to ensure each
          defendant's appearance and to protect the public.  If
          there are justifications for holding a particular de-
          fendant without bail at this point, the District Court
          can indicate its reasons.  From that point, any defend-
          ant so advised may appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court
          in the normal course of bail review.
 
The superior court added that after district court review,
 
          [a]bsent a stated reason by the District Court for being
          held without bail, any petitioner identified by number
          in the petition as to whom bail and/or conditions are
          not set by said time and date, should be released.
 
The district court thereupon reviewed the status of petitioners and issued a
lengthy memorandum of decision on April 3, 1990, concluding that "those
persons who have refused to provide reasonable identification" shall
continue to be held without bail.  Petitioners have appealed the superior
court decision, but not the later district court decision, despite authority
to do so.  13 V.S.A. { 7556(b); see State v. Duff, ___ Vt. ___, 563 A.2d 258 (1989); State v. Lambert, 145 Vt. 315,