Title: In re Dunbar

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

IN_RE_DUNBAR.93-276; 162 Vt. 209; 647 A.2d 316

[Opinion Filed June 17, 1994]


 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. 93-276


 In re Vernon Dunbar                          Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
                                              Caledonia Superior Court

                                              May Term, 1994



 Walter M. Morris, Jr., J.

 Brian L. Porto of Plante, Hanley & Gerety, P.C., White River Junction, for
    petitioner-appellant

 Robert M. Butterfield, Caledonia County Deputy State's Attorney, St.
    Johnsbury, for respondent-appellee State of Vermont



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      JOHNSON, J.    Defendant appeals from a decision of the Caledonia
 Superior Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief, which
 alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and failure of the State to
 disclose exculpatory evidence.  We affirm.
      In 1986, defendant was convicted of sexual assault and lewd and
 lascivious conduct with a child.  This Court affirmed his convictions in
 State v. Dunbar, 152 Vt. 399, 566 A.2d 970 (1989).  In May 1990, defendant
 filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) with the Caledonia
 Superior Court, which conducted evidentiary hearings and subsequently denied
 the petition.  Defendant now appeals to this Court.

 

      Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in concluding
 that defendant's two attorneys met the standard of reasonable competence.
 Defendant makes several allegations in support of this argument, the most
 important of which is his contention that he received ineffective assistance
 of counsel because his attorneys failed to present a defense that the two
 child witnesses had been coached by adults.  Defendant also argues that the
 PCR court erred in concluding that the original trial court properly denied
 defendant's request for substitute counsel.  Finally, defendant contends
 that the trial court erred in concluding that evidence the State failed to
 disclose was not exculpatory.
      On a PCR appeal, we review the findings of fact by the clearly
 erroneous standard.  State v. Bristol, 159 Vt. 334, 336, 618 A.2d 1290, 1291
 (1992).  If there is any credible evidence to support the findings, and the
 conclusions follow from the findings, this Court will uphold the trial
 court's judgment.  Id.
                                     I.
      On a petition for post-conviction relief, defendant bears the burden of
 proving "by a preponderance of the evidence, that fundamental errors
 rendered his conviction defective."  In re Liberty, 154 Vt. 643, 644, 572 A.2d 1381, 1382 (1990) (mem.).  When the claimed error is ineffective
 assistance of counsel, defendant must show by a preponderance of the
 evidence that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of
 reasonableness informed by prevailing professional norms.  Strickland v.
 Washington,