Title: Quinn v. State

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Quinn v. State (2001-540); 174 Vt. 562; 816 A.2d 425

[Filed 24-Oct-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-540

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2002


  James W. Quinn, III	                }	APPEALED FROM:
                                        }
                                        }
       v.	                        }	Bennington Superior Court
                                        }	
                                        }
  State of Vermont	                }	DOCKET NO. 430-12-00 Bncv

                                                Trial Judge: Richard W. Norton

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       Petitioner James W. Quinn, III appeals from a decision of the
  Bennington Superior Court denying him post-conviction relief.  Petitioner
  asserts that the superior court erred in concluding that his guilty pleas
  were knowing and voluntary because: 1) his attorney coerced him to plead
  guilty by unduly pressuring him during the plea hearing; 2) he mistakenly
  believed that he could be charged as a habitual offender if he did not
  accept the State's plea offer; 3) he was under the mistaken belief that he
  would serve his sentence in Windsor; 4) he did not understand that his
  sentences for the sale of marijuana would run consecutively; and 5) he was
  taking medication that impaired his judgment.  We find that petitioner's
  attorney unduly coerced him to enter guilty pleas, and therefore reverse
  and remand.

       The superior court found the following relevant facts.  On February
  18, 1997, petitioner pled guilty to sexual assault and received a sentence
  of 115 days to ten years with all suspended but 115 days.  Petitioner was
  released on probation after serving the 115 days but was found in violation
  of probation after three days of contested hearings on November 5, 1999,
  March 3, 2000, and April 25, 2000.  Between the March 3 and April 25
  hearing dates, petitioner was charged with three felony counts of sale of
  marijuana and contempt of court.  Sentencing on the probation violation was
  set for June 22, 2000. 

       On June 22, 2000, petitioner's attorney negotiated a plea agreement
  with the State and a plea hearing was held in lieu of the sentencing
  hearing.  The plea agreement encompassed and resolved the violation of
  probation matter, the three sale of marijuana charges, and the contempt of
  court charge.  In exchange for petitioner's guilty pleas to two counts of
  sale of marijuana, the State agreed to drop one of the sale of marijuana
  charges and the contempt of court charge, and also agreed not to bring a
  habitual offender charge.  The plea agreement form indicated that the total
  recommended sentence for the three charges was for five years, 115 days to
  eighteen years.       	

 
          
       Petitioner now argues on appeal that his attorney coerced him to plead
  guilty during the plea hearing.  For post-conviction relief to be granted,
  petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a fundamental
  error rendered his conviction defective.  In re Hemingway, 168 Vt. 569,
  570,