Title: In re LaMountain

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re LaMountain  (99-195); 170 Vt. 642; 752 A.2d 24

[Filed 19-Apr-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-195

                             JANUARY TERM, 2000

State of Vermont                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Chittenden Superior Court
                                       }	
David LaMountain                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. S0306-98CnC

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       The State appeals from the superior court's ruling vacating petitioner
  David LaMountain's  1985 conviction for driving while intoxicated, first
  offense.   Petitioner collaterally attacked the 1985  conviction that was
  based on a guilty plea, which he claims was not intelligent and voluntary. 
  The  court found jurisdiction based on the permanent revocation of
  petitioner's license and vacated the  1985 conviction because of Rule 11
  violations.  We reverse.

       In March 1998, petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief
  requesting the court  vacate  his 1985 conviction because his guilty plea
  was not voluntary and intelligent.  Petitioner's driver's  license is now
  revoked for life as a result of his three convictions, including the 1985
  conviction, for  DWI.  See 23 V.S.A. § 1208.   The court decided this
  permanent restriction on petitioner's liberty  satisfied the requirements
  of the post-conviction-relief statute and vacated the 1985 conviction based 
  on the absence of a recorded Rule 11 colloquy. 

       On appeal, the State argues that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear
  the claim because  petitioner is not "in custody under sentence" as
  required by the post-conviction-relief statute.  See  id.   Substantively,
  the State argues that the court erred in vacating the conviction where
  petitioner  had not carried his burden to show fundamental errors rendered
  his conviction defective. 

       Post-conviction relief is available only to petitioners who are "in
  custody under sentence of  a court."  See 13 V.S.A. § 7131.  Rule 32(d)
  motions are available to those convicted but not in  custody under
  sentence.  See V.R.Cr.P. 32(d).  Therefore, as a threshold question, we
  must determine whether petitioner's situation satisfies the jurisdictional
  requirement that he be "in custody under  sentence."

 

       A defendant need not be incarcerated to be "in custody."  See State v.
  Wargo, 168 Vt. 231,  234,