Title: State v. Dove

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

STATE_V_DOVE.93-441; 163 Vt 429; 658 A.2d 936

[Filed 24-Mar-1995]

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. 93-441


State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
                                                  District Court of Vermont,
     v.                                           Unit No. 1, Bennington Circuit


Jonathan Dove                                     February Term, 1995



John P. Morrissey, Specially Assigned

William D. Wright, Bennington County State's Attorney, and Marcia J. Moss,
Deputy State's Attorney, Bennington, for plaintiff-appellee 

Peter F. Langrock and Kevin E. Brown of Langrock Sperry & Wool, Middlebury, for
defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     MORSE, J.   Defendant appeals from the denial of a motion to withdraw a
nolo contendere plea after he received an eight- to fifteen-year sentence for
the crime of careless and negligent driving with serious injury resulting. 
23 V.S.A.  1091(c).  Defendant contends that because his sentence was
statistically unprecedented, his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and
intelligent, and his sentence violated the proportionality clause of Chapter
II,  39 of the Vermont Constitution.  Defendant further contends that his
sentence was based on his status as a drug addict and that the district court
abused its discretion by considering his history of alcohol 

 

and drug addiction.  We affirm. 

     Defendant was travelling west on Route 9 toward Bennington when he lost
control of his car and struck an oncoming vehicle.  Defendant and the five
occupants of the other vehicle sustained injuries.  Two of the occupants
suffered back and spinal injuries which required surgery; one of those
occupants is now permanently paralyzed from the waist down.  The State
charged defendant with violating 23 V.S.A.  1201(a)(2) (driving while under
the influence) and 23 V.S.A.  1091(c) (careless and negligent driving with
serious injury resulting). 

     After consulting his lawyer, defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere
to the charge of careless and negligent driving with serious injury
resulting.  As part of that plea agreement, the State did not prosecute the
charge of driving under the influence.  The court ordered a pre- sentence
investigation report and held a three-hour hearing, after which the court
sentenced defendant to eight to fifteen years imprisonment.  Defendant moved
to withdraw his plea, and the court denied the motion. 

     Different standards are applied to plea withdrawal motions depending on
whether they are made before or after sentencing.  A motion made before
sentencing is to be liberally granted "where the reason is fair and just and
the prosecution has not relied on the plea to its substantial prejudice." 
Reporter's Notes, V.R.Cr.P. 32(d) at 151.  When a motion to withdraw a nolo
contendere plea is made after sentencing, however, "the court may set aside
the judgment of conviction and permit withdrawal of the plea only to correct
manifest injustice," a much stricter standard.  V.R.Cr.P. 32(d); see State v.
Wisell, 136 Vt. 541, 542,