Title: State v. Roya

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Roya (2000-100); 174 Vt. 451; 807 A.2d 371

[Filed 12-Jun-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-100

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2001


State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
Kenneth G. Roya	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 3360-6-99 Cncr

                                                Trial Judge:  Brian Burgess

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       Defendant Kenneth G. Roya appeals from a conviction of driving under
  the influence of  intoxicating liquor (DUI).  He claims the standard form
  used by police during the DUI processing  misinformed him of his right to
  consult an attorney before deciding to submit to a breath test, and, on 
  this basis alone, seeks reversal of his conviction and suppression of the
  breath test evidence.  He  further argues that he should not be required to
  prove that he was prejudiced by the misinformation  in order to obtain this
  result. We affirm. 

       Defendant was arrested on suspicion of DUI, taken to the police
  station for processing, and  was asked to submit to a breath test. 
  Pursuant to a form in use at the time, designed to advise  motorists of
  their right to consult with an attorney prior to deciding whether to submit
  to a breath  test, defendant was told:  "You have the right to talk with a
  lawyer before deciding whether or not to  submit to a test.  If you cannot
  afford a lawyer and want one, a Public Defender will be contacted for  you,
  at the State's expense."  

       Indicating that he understood his rights, defendant chose not to
  consult an attorney, and  declined to take the test.   A year and a half
  later he was charged with DUI. (FN1)  During that period,  this Court held
  in State v. Madonna, 169 Vt. 98, 102,