Title: State v. Stevens

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Stevens (2001-465); 175 Vt. 503; 825 A.2d 8

2003 VT 15

[Filed 07-Feb-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 15

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-465

                             JANUARY TERM, 2003

  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
  Norman Stevens	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NOS. 4599/4605-8-99CnCr

                                                Trial Judge: Michael S. Kupersmith

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

       ¶  1.  Defendant Norman Stevens appeals from his conviction by jury
  of attempted first-degree murder, kidnapping, burglary, two counts of
  aggravated assault, and violation of an abuse prevention order.  Defendant
  argues that (1) the trial court's burglary instruction constituted plain
  error because it permitted the jury to find defendant guilty of burglary
  based on elements not charged in the information; (2) his convictions for
  attempted first-degree murder, kidnapping, and one of the counts of
  aggravated assault violated the Double Jeopardy Clause; and (3) the
  imposition of a sentence of life without parole, pursuant to 13 V.S.A. §
  2303, violated both the Vermont and United States Constitutions.  We
  affirm.

       ¶  2.  The facts are not in dispute.  Prior to August 13, 1999,
  defendant had been romantically involved with Amy Cruickshank.  On August
  13, Cruickshank obtained a temporary relief from abuse order, which was
  served on defendant that afternoon.  In the early hours of August 14,
  defendant broke into the motel room where Cruickshank was residing and
  where she was asleep with her boyfriend, Christopher Massey.  Defendant
  attacked Cruickshank and Massey with a hammer, injuring both of them and
  driving Massey from the room.  Defendant dragged Cruickshank by the hair
  out of the room and toward his van parked outside.  Defendant had equipped
  the van with ropes on the front passenger seat in order to restrain
  Cruickshank, as well as with gasoline and flares with which defendant
  intended to set the vehicle on fire.  As defendant dragged Cruickshank
  towards the van, he was apprehended by several neighbors, who restrained
  him until the police arrived.  Defendant voluntarily admitted to the police
  that he had assaulted the victims and further indicated that he had
  intended to go down the road and set the vehicle on fire with Cruickshank
  inside.
        
       ¶  3.  At trial, the jury found defendant guilty of six counts:
  attempted first-degree murder of Cruickshank, aggravated assault of
  Cruickshank and Massey, kidnapping, burglary, and violation of an abuse
  prevention order.  The court sentenced defendant to life without parole for
  both the attempted murder conviction and the kidnapping conviction, issuing
  a sentencing statement that laid out the aggravating factors under 13
  V.S.A. § 2303(d) that the court considered.  Defendant was also given
  sentences of fourteen to fifteen years on both aggravated assault
  convictions, twenty-four to twenty-five years on the burglary conviction,
  and eleven to twelve months for the violation of the abuse prevention
  order, all of which were to run concurrent to the life sentences but
  consecutive to each other.  Defendant subsequently brought this appeal.

       ¶  4.  Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by
  instructing the jury that they could find him guilty of burglary if he
  entered the motel room with intent to commit either murder, aggravated
  assault, or simple assault.  Defendant contends that because the amended
  information specified that he entered the room with intent to commit
  murder, the court's instruction permitted conviction of a crime not charged
  and thereby denied him an opportunity to adequately defend himself on the
  burglary charge.  Defendant acknowledges that since he failed to object to
  the court's instruction after it was given, this Court's review of
  defendant's claim is limited to plain error.  See State v. Tahair, 172 Vt.
  101, 104-05, 772 A.2d 1079, 1082 (2001).

       ¶  5.  We find no prejudice here and therefore no plain error.  See
  State v. Carpenter, 170 Vt. 371, 375,