Title: State v. Parker

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Parker (99-023); 170 Vt. 571; 744 A.2d 434

[Filed 15-Dec-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-023

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 1999

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
	                               }
	                               }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
	                               }	Unit No. 1, Windsor Circuit
Gordon G. Parker	               }
	                               }	DOCKET NO. 349-4-98 Wrcr

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant appeals from a conditional plea of guilty to the charge of
  escape, arguing that the  Vermont Department of Corrections' furlough
  policy, upon which he claims his conviction was based,  was not promulgated
  in accordance with Vermont's Administrative Procedure Act and is therefore
  void.  We affirm.

       Defendant Gordon Parker was serving a seven-to-ten year incarcerative
  sentence when he was  placed on furlough by the Department of Corrections
  (DOC).  Defendant signed an agreement  authorizing his furlough from March
  18, 1998 to April 4, 1998, which included among its specific  conditions:

     To abide by all rules and regulations of this furlough.  Being in the 
     Furlough Program you are expected to have your whereabouts known to the 
     Community Corrections Service Center staff at all times.

     A work and activities schedule will be attached to this furlough and the 
     furloughee will be responsible for full compliance. . . .  
		
     Failure to comply with the furlough may result in immediate 
     reincarceration.  

  Directly above defendant's signature, the authorization agreement stated: 

     I have read and/or had this authorization and conditions explained to me 
     and agree to abide by them.  Failure to follow these instructions can 
     result in prosecution for Escape.

       On March 30, 1998, defendant violated his furlough when he failed to
  report to DOC offices for  rehabilitative programming and could not be
  located by DOC employees.  Defendant was charged with  escape from furlough
  under 13 V.S.A. § 1501(b)(2).  

       In July 1998, the State amended its information, charging that
  defendant "[d]id then and there,  visit a place other than that required by
  an order for furlough issued by the Vermont Department of  Corrections, as
  required by 28 V.S.A. § 808, in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 1501(b)(2)."  In
  response,  defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that since the
  DOC's furlough policy - described by  defendant as Policy 601 - had not
  been promulgated pursuant to

 

  the rulemaking provisions of the Vermont Administrative Procedures Act
  (VAPA), see 3 V.S.A. § 801  et. seq., he could not be prosecuted for escape
  from furlough because the policy was void.  The State  filed an opposition
  motion in August 1998.

       In September 1998, the Windsor District Court denied defendant's
  motion, holding that he had  not shown prejudice from the application of
  DOC's policy and that, given his agreement to the  conditions of his
  furlough, there was no violation of due process.  Defendant subsequently
  entered into a  conditional plea agreement, pleading guilty to the escape
  charge but reserving his right to appeal the  denial of his motion. 
  Defendant was sentenced to a three-year term consecutive to his previous 
  sentence, and this appeal followed.

       The standard for addressing a motion to dismiss for lack of a prima
  facie case under V.R.Cr.P.  12(d) is whether, taking the evidence in the
  light most favorable to the state and excluding modifying  evidence, the
  state has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show the
  defendant guilty  beyond a reasonable doubt.  See State v. Fanger, 164 Vt.
  48, 51,