Case Title: State v. Lewis

Citation: 167 Vt. 533, 711 A.2d 669

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-04-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Lewis  (96-493); 167 Vt. 533; 711 A.2d 669

[Filed 17-Apr-1998]

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. 96-493

State of Vermont                            Supreme Court

                                            On Appeal from
      v.                                    District Court of Vermont
                                            Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

Rainey Lewis                                October Term, 1997

David A. Jenkins, J.

Lauren Bowerman, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and John  R. Treadwell, 
Deputy State's   Attorney, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert  Appel, Defender General, Anna Saxman, Appellate Attorney, and  David 
Moore,  Law   Clerk (on the Brief),  Montpelier,  for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       MORSE, J.  Defendant Rainey Lewis pled guilty to escape, 13 V.S.A. §
  1501, and as a condition of probation was ordered to pay restitution to the
  Department of Corrections for the expenses it incurred in his extradition
  from North Carolina.  He appeals the order contending (1) the cost of
  extradition is a "cost of prosecution" and thus is not taxable to criminal
  defendants; (2) the probation condition exceeds the statutory limits on
  restitution; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support the award. 
  We affirm.

       On October 6, 1995, defendant failed to return from work furlough to
  the Northwest Regional Correctional Facility. Instead, he fled to North
  Carolina and subsequently was charged with escape.  See 13 V.S.A. § 1501. 
  In March of 1996, defendant was apprehended in North Carolina and
  extradited to Vermont where he was returned to the custody of the Vermont
  Department of Corrections.  The cost of defendant's extradition was borne
  by the Department.

 

       After a plea of guilty, defendant objected to a recommendation in the
  pre-sentence investigation report ("PSI") that he be ordered to reimburse
  the Department nearly $3,000 for the cost of his extradition.  The trial
  court sentenced defendant to one-to-three years, all suspended except for
  nine months, with special probation conditions.  Among the conditions
  imposed was an order that defendant pay $1,500 to the Department.  This
  appeal followed.

                                     A.

       We first consider defendant's assertion that the cost of extradition
  is a "cost of prosecution" and therefore is not taxable to criminal
  defendants.  At issue are two Vermont statutes:  13 V.S.A. § 7172(b),
  stating that the "[c]ost of prosecution shall not be taxed against a
  respondent in any criminal cause," and 13 V.S.A. § 7253, stating that
  "[t]he costs of prosecution for the breach of a penal law or other offense
  . . . shall be paid out of the treasury of the state."  Neither statute
  specifically defines what constitutes a cost of prosecution.

       We have construed the statutes to preclude charging criminal
  defendants for the costs of a search warrant, the trial record, subpoenas,
  and a continuance.  See Fay v. Barber, 72 Vt. 55, 58, 59, 47 A. 180, 182
  (1899).  In addition, we have rejected cost awards for term fees, travel
  fees, and attorney's fees in a criminal case.  See In re Pierce, 103 Vt.
  438, 439, 156 At. 137, (1931).  We have also ruled that jury costs could
  not be imposed on the state's attorney's office or the police department. 
  See State v. Mitchell, 147 Vt. 218, 220,