Case Title: State v. Thompson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 91-180

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-02-01T00:00:00Z

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, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 91-180


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit

 Angela M. Thompson                           February Term, 1992


 Dean B. Pineles, J.

 Robert M. Butterfield, Caledonia County Deputy State's Attorney,
   St. Johnsbury, for plaintiff-appellee

 David C. Sleigh, St. Johnsbury, for defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      DOOLEY, J.   Defendant, Angela Thompson, appeals from a $500 fine,
 imposed after she was convicted of simple assault.  She claims the sentence
 violated her due process rights because it was imposed after she asserted
 her right to appeal from a proposed lower sentence which contained illegal
 elements.  We agree and reverse.
      Defendant was convicted of simple assault entered into by mutual con-
 sent following a fight with another woman.  13 V.S.A. { 1023(b).  At the
 sentencing hearing, the court first proposed a $500 fine with all but $100
 suspended and ordered the defendant to pay $200 in restitution.  When
 defendant argued that the restitution part of the sentence was illegal and
         indicated that she might appeal, the court stated:
         If the defense is going to challenge a restitution
         order, and perhaps there is a legal basis for the
         challenge, then some of what I had in mind is what we
         would normally think of as pain and suffering and that
         is generally not the kind of thing we deal with when we
         talk about restitution.  I may just impose a fine of
         $500 and get on with it.

 Defendant then sought a statement from the court on the record showing the
 purpose of the restitution order.  The court agreed to give it, but stated,
 "I would like to know what the defense's position is on that."  Defendant's
 lawyer answered that he had thirty days to decide and continued to indicate
 that restitution could not be awarded to a mutual combatant in a fight.  The
 court then changed its sentence and said:
         Well, if it is going to turn out to be an issue and
         potentially cause this litigation to continue, I think
         finality is more important and we will just end the
         discussion of restitution and I will order that payment
         of a fine of $500 which is what I indicated when the
         matter was brought to my attention by the Clerk as to
         whether we could resolve this without probation.  That
         discussion came up when we were deciding how to schedule
         this matter for further proceedings.
         The discussion referred to by the court is not on the record.
      Defendant raises two issues:  (1) whether the restitution award in the
 court's proposed sentence was lawful; and (2) whether her due process rights
 were violated by the imposition of a higher sentence after she exercised her
 right to challenge the lower, potentially illegal sentence.  Since the court
 did not impose its proposed sentence and we agree that the sentence actually
 imposed denied due process, we reach only the second issue.
      The leading case on due process constraints in sentencing options is
 North Carolina v. Pearce,