Case Title: State v. Fisk

Citation: 165 Vt 260, 682 A.2d 937

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-05-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Fisk  (93-545); 165 Vt 260; 682 A.2d 937

[Opinion Filed 10-May-1996]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 31-May-1996 and 28-Jun-1996]


       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. 93-545


State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            District Court of Vermont,
                                                  Unit No. 1, Rutland Circuit

James E. Fisk                                     October Term, 1995


Francis McCaffrey, J.

       Peter R. Neary, Rutland County Deputy State's Attorney, Rutland, for
  plaintiff-appellee

       Robert Appel, Defender General, Henry Hinton, Appellate Defender,
  Montpelier, and James E. Fisk, pro se, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:       Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., and Teachout,
  Super. J., Specially Assigned


       MORSE, J.   Defendant James Fisk appeals the district court's denial
  of his motion to withdraw a plea of nolo contendere.  His motion was
  premised on his alleged lack of awareness that his sentence for sexual
  abuse of a minor might require him to admit his guilt as a part of
  treatment or face incarceration.  Defendant claims the trial court abused
  its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw.  We affirm.

       "[T]he court may permit withdrawal of [a nolo contendere] plea if the
  defendant shows any fair and just reason and that reason substantially
  outweighs any prejudice which would result to the state from the withdrawal
  of the plea."  V.R.Cr.P. 32(d).  The trial judge has discretion when
  deciding whether to allow withdrawal.  State v. Cross, 142 Vt. 44, 46,