Title: State v. Ingerson

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Ingerson (2003-114); 176 Vt. 428; 852 A.2d 567

2004 VT 36

[Filed 09-Apr-2003]

       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.

                                 2004 VT 36

                                No. 2003-114

  State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit

  James Ingerson	                         November Term, 2003

  Karen R. Carroll, J.

  Dan M. Davis, Windham County State's Attorney, and Scott A. Willison, Law
    Clerk, (On the Brief), Brattleboro, for Plaintiff-Appellee.  

  Allison N. Fulcher of Martin & Associates, Barre, for Defendant-Appellant.

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

       ¶  1.  REIBER, J.     Defendant was convicted of burglarizing
  Walker's Restaurant in Brattleboro, Vermont and received an enhanced
  sentence of twenty to thirty years of imprisonment as a habitual offender
  under 13 V.S.A. § 11.  Defendant appeals both the conviction and sentence,
  claiming that (1) he was prejudiced by the court's failure to arraign him
  on the amended information charging him as a habitual offender; (2) the
  evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
  broke into Walker's Restaurant with the intent to steal; and (3) the
  sentence was unfair and unjust because it was driven by the judge's animus
  towards defendant.  We affirm.  
   
       ¶  2.  In early March 2002, defendant entered Walker's Restaurant in
  Brattleboro by breaking a window near the building's back door.  Defendant
  had worked at the restaurant as a prep cook and later did some painting and
  sheetrocking for its owners.  While inside the restaurant, defendant tried
  to break into a safe, but managed only to badly damage its handle. 
  Defendant left the restaurant after taking some loose change the owner kept
  in a desk drawer.  The following month, the State charged defendant with
  burglary and unlawful mischief in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 1201 and §
  3701(c) respectively.  He was arraigned on the charges in early May.  On
  May 31, 2002, the State notified the court and defendant that it intended
  to seek an enhanced penalty under 13 V.S.A. § 11 because defendant had four
  prior felony convictions.  The State filed an amended information to that
  effect the same day.  A one-day trial was held in October 2002, and the
  jury found defendant guilty of burglary and unlawful mischief.  After the
  court sentenced defendant to a term of twenty to thirty years, he filed the
  present appeal.
   
       ¶  3.  Defendant first claims error in the trial court's failure to
  arraign him on the habitual offender charge.  Vermont's habitual offender
  statute, 13 V.S.A. § 11, provides an enhanced penalty for a defendant's
  fourth or subsequent felony conviction.  13 V.S.A. § 11.  The statute does
  not, however, define a separate or new offense.  State v. Kasper, 137 Vt.
  184, 213,