Title: In re Plante

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Plante (99-096); 171 Vt. 310; 762 A.2d 873 

[Filed 20-Oct-2000]

       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. 99-096

In re Robert W. Plante	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
                                                 Windham Superior Court

 
                                                 March Term, 2000

John P. Wesley, J.

Robert Appel, Defender General, and Seth Lipschutz, Prisoners' Rights Office, 
  Montpelier, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Dan M. Davis, Windham County State's Attorney, and Matthew T. Jones, Deputy 
  State's Attorney, for Respondent-Appellee.

PRESENT: Dooley, Morse, and Skoglund, JJ., Allen, C.J. (Ret.) and Gibson, J. 
         (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       SKOGLUND, J.   Petitioner Robert W. Plante, who was convicted of
  first-degree (felony)  murder and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
  fifty years to life, appeals the superior court's  decision denying his
  petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), which is based on a claim of 
  ineffective assistance of counsel.  We affirm.

       Petitioner was charged with murdering Glenn Michaelson in
  Williamsville, Vermont on May  31, 1992.  He was charged with felony murder
  based on the allegation that he had stolen items from  the decedent after
  the murder, including the decedent's car.  Two attorneys were assigned as 
  petitioner's trial counsel.  In December 1992, after a defense investigator
  uncovered information 

 

  suggesting that the decedent was involved in selling drugs, the State
  offered to recommend a  sentence of twenty-five years to life imprisonment
  if petitioner would plead guilty to second-degree  murder.  The offer was
  not accepted.

       Shortly before trial, the State offered to recommend a sentence of
  twenty-to-fifty years in  exchange for petitioner's plea of guilty to
  second-degree murder.  Petitioner's attorneys thought the  plea offer was
  of little practical advantage, however, because it did not guarantee
  against petitioner  serving a lengthy sentence well beyond the minimum
  term.  One of the attorneys advised petitioner  to reject the offer.  The
  other one described the offer as "steep," but told petitioner that the
  final  decision was his to make.  Petitioner rejected the offer and elected
  to take his chances at trial.

       Petitioner's attorneys presented alternative inconsistent defenses at
  trial.  Their principal  defense was that reasonable doubt existed as to
  whether petitioner was the murderer.  As a secondary  theme, they presented
  evidence of petitioner's diminished capacity due to intoxication at the
  time of  the murder.  They requested and received an instruction that the
  jury could consider such evidence in  determining whether petitioner could
  have formed the intent necessary to commit felony murder.

       Although defense counsel requested a diminished-capacity instruction,
  they did not request a  second-degree murder instruction.  The State
  requested an instruction on second-degree murder, but  the trial court
  denied the request, ruling that because petitioner had been charged with
  felony murder,  the jury would have to convict him either of first-degree
  murder or the lesser-included offense of  manslaughter.  See 13 V.S.A. §
  2301 (murder committed in perpetration of robbery or burglary shall  be
  first-degree murder).  The jury found petitioner guilty of first-degree
  murder, and he was  sentenced to fifty years to life imprisonment.

       After this Court affirmed petitioner's conviction, see State v.
  Plante, 164 Vt. 350, 351,