Title: State v. Duford

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

STATE_V_DUFORD.94-083; 163 Vt 630; 660 A.2d 736

[Filed 30-Mar-1995]

                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 94-083

                             JANUARY TERM, 1995


State of Vermont                       }          APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.                                }          District Court of Vermont,
                                       }          Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit
                                       }
James A. Duford                        }          DOCKET NO. 205-3-93CaCr

                     In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

     Defendant appeals from his conviction of burglary and petit larceny.  He
raises two claims:  (1) that the prosecutor's withdrawal of the plea
agreement at the status conference violated the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C.  12132; and (2) that the trial court erred by
refusing to give a jury instruction on diminished capacity.  We affirm. 

     First, defendant argues that during the plea colloquy the trial court,
as a matter of its supervisory authority, should have instituted a reasonable
accommodation to defendant's mental incapacity in accordance with the ADA. 
Though the court had determined defendant to be competent to stand trial, the
doctor's evaluation stated that his ability to understand the plea bargaining
process was rudimentary and should be conducted through concrete examples.
Defendant claims that the trial court ran afoul of this advice during the
status conference, thus violating the ADA by failing to make a reasonable
accommodation to defendant's mental disability. 

     On the morning of the status conference, there was a plea offer pending
from the State. Defense counsel brought to the court's attention defendant's
difficulties in understanding plea negotiations, and requested more time for
defendant to reconsider the plea offer.  The court granted the request.  Once
a plea agreement was reached, the trial judge questioned defendant regarding
his understanding of the agreement.  At that point, defendant stated he did
not "understand none of this stuff.  It's something I never done."  The
prosecutor then indicated he wanted the matter set for trial.  The trial
judge inquired once more whether or not defendant had an agreement that day. 
When defendant answered, "[n]ot that I know of," the court scheduled a trial
and defense counsel did not object. 

     Where defendant does not preserve an issue for appeal, we will not
review it sua sponte short of plain error "so grave and serious as to strike
at the very heart of defendant's constitutional rights."  State v. Mecier,
145 Vt. 173, 178,