Title: State v. Kimmick

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Kimmick (2005-188)

2007 VT 45

[Filed 24-May-2007]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2007 VT 45

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-188

                             JANUARY TERM, 2007


  State of Vermont                    }         APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
       v.                             }         District Court of Vermont,
                                      }         Unit No. 1, Windsor Circuit
  William Kimmick                     }
                                      }         DOCKET NO. 106-1-04 Wrcr

                                                Trial Judge: Harold E. Eaton, Jr.

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Defendant William Kimmick appeals his sentence imposed
  following a contested sentencing hearing in the district court.  Defendant
  alleges the court erred in: (1) permitting victim-impact testimony by
  unsworn witnesses; (2) permitting a non-victim to testify as a victim; and,
  (3) imposing a sentence in which the effective minimum and maximum terms
  are, after taking into account the effect of good-time credit, the same. 
  We affirm. 

       ¶  2.  On November 23, 2004, defendant pleaded guilty to voluntary
  manslaughter of his ex-wife.  The plea agreement contained no agreed-upon
  sentence; rather, the parties stipulated that each could argue for a
  particular sentence at a contested hearing.  Under the terms of the
  agreement, defendant waived his right to appeal a "lawfully-imposed
  sentence." 

       ¶  3.  At the final status conference, the district court noted that
  there was a legal question as to whether family members were required to
  make their statements under oath.  Accordingly, the court asked defense
  counsel directly whether there were any objections to the family members
  making unsworn statements; defense counsel did not object.  At the
  sentencing hearing, the district court indicated that victim-impact
  testimony should be confined to matters of opinion on the sentence and
  should not include assertions of fact.  The court instructed that defense
  counsel could request the witnesses be sworn in at any time if they began
  to present factual information.  At no time during the unsworn
  victim-impact testimony did defense counsel raise an objection or request
  that a witness be sworn in. 
          
       ¶  4.  During the sentencing hearing, a witness from the Department
  of Corrections (DOC) testified as to the good-time credit available to
  reduce defendant's sentence, noting that under the relevant statutory
  scheme, his sentence could not be reduced by good time below the minimum
  term set by the court.  The DOC witness also testified to the effect of
  good-time credit on a split sentence - a sentence with a portion suspended
  over a probationary period - and a straight sentence - a sentence without
  suspended time.  Three witnesses gave unsworn victim-impact testimony: the
  victim's mother; the victim's sister; and the victim's sister's fiancé, who
  was also a longtime friend of the family.  A state trooper was sworn in and
  testified as to the investigation.  Four witnesses testified on behalf of
  defendant; all of these witnesses were sworn in. 
    
       ¶  5.  In argument at the hearing, both the State and defendant
  supported the split-sentence option.  The district court imposed a straight
  sentence with a minimum of fourteen and a maximum of fifteen years.  

       ¶  6.  Defendant claims that the sentence was "imposed in an illegal
  manner" because the procedure was deficient, and that it is "illegal"
  because the minimum and maximum sentences are effectively the same. 
  V.R.Cr.P. 35(a).  He further contends that the appeal waiver does not
  prevent these claims.  Because we find defendant's first arguments
  unmeritorious, we do not reach whether the appeal waiver precludes their
  review.   

       ¶  7.  Defendant first argues that, in light of his constitutional
  right "not [to] be sentenced on the basis of materially untrue
  information," it was reversible error to permit unsworn witnesses to
  testify at his sentencing hearing.  State v. Ramsay, 146 Vt. 70, 78,