Title: State v. Yates

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Yates  (97-191); 169 Vt. 20; 726 A.2d 483

[Filed 8-Jan-1999]

       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.

                                 No. 97-191

State of Vermont	                     Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from

     v.	                                     District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 3, Washington Circuit

Michael Yates	                             May Term, 1998

Edward J. Cashman, J.

       Paul Finnerty, Washington County Deputy State's Attorney, Barre, for
  Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Robert Appel, Defender General, and Anna Saxman, Appellate Attorney,
  Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.

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

       JOHNSON, J.  Defendant appeals from an order of the Washington
  District Court denying  his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to a charge
  of aggravated domestic assault, arguing that the  trial court did not
  comply with V.R.Cr.P. 11(f).  We reverse and remand for the trial court to
  give  defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea.

       Defendant agreed to plead guilty to charges of first-degree aggravated
  domestic assault and  simple assault arising out of an altercation
  involving his then-wife and her friend Steve Machia.  The  resulting plea
  agreement provided that defendant would receive a four-year deferred
  sentence on the  domestic assault charge and a zero- to one-year suspended
  sentence on the simple assault charge.  At a November 12, 1996 status
  conference, the trial court accepted the plea agreement, entered  judgment,
  and sentenced defendant according to the agreement.  Defendant subsequently
  signed a  probation order imposing numerous probation conditions.   
       
       On February 13, 1997, defendant was arrested and charged with
  violating four separate  conditions of his probation.  After a merits
  hearing, the trial court found three violations of 

  

  probation.  The court revoked defendant's deferred sentence and continued
  the sentencing  hearing pending a pre-sentence investigation.  The report
  of the pre-sentence investigation was filed  on March 18, 1997, and
  sentencing was set for May 7, 1997.  Thereafter, on May 2, 1997,  defendant
  filed a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to the charge of aggravated
  domestic assault.  The trial court heard the motion and denied it,
  concluding that defendant had brought it in bad faith  and that he must
  demonstrate actual prejudice in order to withdraw his plea.  The court
  sentenced  defendant to serve the zero- to one-year sentence on the simple
  assault charge, and to serve a  concurrent three- to twelve-year sentence
  on the aggravated domestic assault charge.  This appeal  follows.

                                     I.

       Initially, the State contends that we need not reach the merits of
  this appeal because the court  lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant's
  motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to V.R.Cr.P.  32(d).  Rule
  32(d) provides in relevant part:

     A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty . . . may be made only by a 
     defendant who is not in custody under sentence.  The motion must 
     be made prior to or within 30 days after the date of entry of 
     judgment, except that a defendant whose sentence does not include 
     a term of imprisonment may make the motion at any time. 

       The State contends that defendant was "in custody under sentence"
  because the conditions of his  probation imposed significant restraints
  upon his personal liberty that were sufficient to constitute  custody.  We
  agree with the State that defendant was in custody.  See State v. Wargo,
  ___ Vt.  ___, ___,