Title: In re Barrows

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Barrows (2004-082)

2007 VT 9

[Filed 26-Jan-2007]


       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.


                                  2007 VT 9

                                No. 2004-082


  In re Keith Barrows                            Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
                                                 Chittenden Superior Court

                                                 March Term, 2006


  Matthew I. Katz, J.

  Matthew Valerio, Defender General, Seth Lipschutz, Prisoners' Rights
    Office, and Gregory Sampson, Law Clerk, Montpelier, for
    Petitioner-Appellant.

  Robert Simpson, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hall
    Johnson, Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for Respondent-Appellee.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

       ¶  1.  BURGESS, J.  Petitioner Keith Barrows appeals the superior
  court's order granting summary judgment for the State and dismissing his
  petition for post-conviction relief (PCR).  He argues that: (1) he was
  unlawfully denied expert services in pursuing PCR; (2) the trial court
  judge should have recused himself by virtue of the judge's participation in
  the underlying criminal case; and (3) the trial court did not adequately
  consider petitioner's allegations before dismissing the case.  We affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  Petitioner was charged with burglary and sexual assault, in
  violation of 13 V.S.A. §§ 1201 and 3253, for entering a home in the early
  morning of January 16, 1995, and subjecting one of the occupants to
  repeated nonconsensual sexual acts.  On January 31, 1995, Judge Katz issued
  an arrest warrant for petitioner on these charges and a warrant to search
  petitioner's home.  That same day, Judge Katz presided over an inquest
  proceeding related to the case.  The following day, petitioner was
  arraigned before Judge Katz and ordered held without bail.  Judge Katz
  denied petitioner's subsequent motion to review bail.  In October 1997, the
  case was tried before a jury, Judge Pineles presiding, and petitioner was
  found guilty on both counts.  Petitioner was sentenced to fifty-five years
  to life.  Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentence to this Court,
  and we affirmed.  State v. Barrows, No. 98-085 (Vt. Aug. 21, 2000)
  (unreported mem.).  Petitioner now challenges these convictions through the
  present PCR proceeding. 

       ¶  3.  Prior to the January 1995 offenses, petitioner had been
  charged with a burglary committed on October 31, 1994, in which a man
  entered the bedroom of a St. Michael's College student and briefly
  restrained the student before fleeing.  Judge Katz issued a warrant to take
  a sample of petitioner's DNA in connection with the investigation of that
  crime in December 1994.  The DNA sample was subsequently used to connect
  petitioner to the January 1995 crimes.  At arraignment for the October
  crime, Judge Katz ordered petitioner released with conditions.  Judge Katz
  later received, but did not act on, a letter from the father of the St.
  Michael's student asking that the petitioner be held in jail pending trial. 
   
       ¶  4.  In the present case, petitioner dismissed his assigned
  counsel and filed a lengthy pro se petition for PCR that recited alleged
  facts and violations of his due-process rights-ninety-four points in all. 
  The State moved for summary judgment and dismissal, contending that many of
  the allegations did not present a basis for PCR, and those claims that
  might were not supported by any evidence.  In response, petitioner moved
  for expert and investigative services to: (1) aid in his claim of
  ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) review the DNA evidence; (3) perform
  tests on the rape kit swabs to look for evidence of spermicidal cream; and
  (4) locate and interview witnesses.  Describing the motion as a
  "scattershot request," the superior court, Judge Katz presiding, denied
  defendant's motion for services.  In a separate order filed the same day,
  the court granted the State's motion for summary judgment, stating:

    Petitioner lists vast categories of evidence.  But shows not one
    admissible fact which would cast doubt on guilt/conviction.  E.g.,
    ¶ 4a - witnesses who saw him with victim in "5 different
    establishments."  Yet not even 1 such place is named.  Summ[ary]
    judgment "smokes out" whether, indeed, there is such evidence. 
    Here, petitioner actually presents nothing.

  Petitioner appealed. (FN1)

       ¶  5.  This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo,
  employing the same standard as the trial court.  Weale v. Lund, 2006 VT 66,
  ¶ 3, __ Vt. __, 904 A.2d 1191 (mem.).  To obtain summary judgment, the
  moving party must demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material
  fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Id.; V.R.C.P.
  56(c)(3).
   
       ¶  6.  Petitioner claims a right to expert and investigative
  services under the Public Defender Act's (PDA) provision entitling needy
  defendants or prisoners to "necessary services and facilities of
  representation," 13 V.S.A. § 5231(2).  A needy defendant has a statutory
  right to these services at state expense, regardless of whether the person
  is pro se or represented by counsel, so long as the person shows that the
  services are "necessary to his defense."  State v. Wool, 162 Vt. 342, 349,