Title: In re Lund

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Lund  (2003-137); 177 Vt. 465; 857 A.2d 279

2004 VT 55

[Filed 08-Jun-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 55

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-137

                              MARCH TERM, 2004

  In re James Lund                   }     APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
                                     }     Essex Superior Court
                                     }     
                                     }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. 7-9-99 Excv

                                          Trial Judges: Dennis R. Pearson
                                                        M. Kathleen Manley

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

       ¶ 1     In this post-conviction-relief (PCR) proceeding, the State
  appeals the superior court's order vacating petitioner's sexual-assault
  conviction based on its determination that petitioner received ineffective
  assistance of counsel before and during his trial.  We grant petitioner's
  motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely filed, and, therefore, do not
  reach the merits of the State's arguments on appeal.

       ¶ 2     The superior court entered its judgment on Thursday, February
  13, 2003.  Because the thirtieth day following the judgment fell on
  Saturday, March 15, the deadline for the filing of a notice of appeal was
  Monday, March 17.  See V.R.A.P. 4 (notice of appeal must be filed within
  thirty days of entry of judgment); V.R.C.P. 6(a) (in computing time periods
  allowed by rules, statutes, or court orders, last day of period shall be
  included unless it falls on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, in which
  case period runs until end of next day that is not Saturday, Sunday, or
  legal holiday).  On February 25, the State filed a motion to stay entry of
  judgment pending appeal, but did not file a notice of appeal until March
  18, following the hearing on the State's motion.

        
       ¶ 3     On March 31, 2003, the State filed a motion to extend time to
  file its notice of appeal one day beyond the thirty-day deadline.  The
  State's excuse for having filed the notice of appeal late was that the
  state's attorney mistakenly believed that his motion to stay judgment
  pending appeal was one of the motions that tolled the running of the
  thirty-day appeal period.  Following a hearing, the superior court granted
  the State's motion to file a late appeal, concluding that the State had
  complied with the spirit of the law because (1) its motion to stay was
  filed within the thirty-day appeal period and gave petitioner notice that
  it intended to file an appeal; (2) its notice of appeal was only one day
  late; and (3) its motion to extend time to file a late appeal was filed
  within thirty days of the expiration of the appeal period.  The court
  determined that, under the circumstances, granting the State's motion to
  extend time would not undermine the goal of finality - the principal reason
  for requiring strict adherence to deadlines for filing notices of appeal. 
  Petitioner seeks dismissal of the appeal, arguing that the superior court
  abused its discretion by granting the State's motion to extend time to file
  its appeal based on the state's attorney's ignorance of court rules.  See
  Solomon v. Design Dev., Inc., 139 Vt. 251, 252-53,