Title: State v. Hamm

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 91-031

                             APRIL TERM, 1991


State of Vermont                  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                  }
                                  }
     v.                           }          District Court of Vermont,
                                  }          Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit
                                  }
Howard Hamm                       }
                                  }          DOCKET NO. 129-12-90WmCS


             In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

     Defendant was arrested for driving while under the influence of
intoxicating liquor (DUI) in violation of 23 V.S.A. { 1201(a)(2).  He
refused to submit to an evidentiary breath test, consent for which is
implied under 23 V.S.A. { 1202(a).  Defendant received a notice of sus-
pension of his operator's license under 23 V.S.A. { 1205(b), and then
requested a district court hearing to contest the suspension, pursuant to 23
V.S.A. { 1205(c)(1).  At the suspension hearing the district court found
that defendant had not prevailed on any of the issues raised under 23 V.S.A.
{ 1205(f), and forwarded its findings and report to the commissioner of
motor vehicles, as provided under 23 V.S.A. { 1205(g), who confirmed the
suspension.

     Defendant brings this appeal under 23 V.S.A. { 1205(i).  The sole issue
is whether a form used by the processing officer to record what he advised
defendant and defendant's responses was deficient.  The form did not indi-
cate that defendant was advised at the time he was asked to take the breath
test of his right to consult with an attorney at public expense before
making the decision.  He concedes the form did advise him of his right to
consult an attorney, as required under 23 V.S.A. { 1202(c) and (d)(4).

     We held in State v. Duff, 136 Vt. 537, 539,