Title: State v. Stanley

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Stanley (2005-550)

2007 VT 64

[Filed 16-Jul-2007]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2007 VT 64

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-550

                              MARCH TERM, 2007


  State of Vermont                    }          APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
       v.                             }          District Court of Vermont,
                                      }          Unit No. 2, Bennington Circuit
  William Stanley                     }
                                      }          DOCKET NO. 997-7-04 BnCr

                                                 Trial Judge: David T. Suntag

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       ¶  1.  Defendant William Stanley appeals his conviction of escape
  and the corresponding sentence imposed by the district court.  He claims
  the conviction should be reversed because: (1) the State failed to prove an
  element of the crime; (2) the district court erred by permitting the trial
  to commence without his presence; and (3) the court abused its discretion
  by denying his attorney's motion to withdraw.  Defendant further contends
  that his sentence should be reversed and remanded because the minimum and
  maximum terms provided are effectively the same.  We affirm both the
  conviction and the sentence. 

       ¶  2.  In July 2004, defendant was incarcerated at Marble Valley
  Regional Correctional Facility.  Early that month, he met with Department
  of Corrections (DOC) employees to discuss the conditions upon which he
  would be furloughed.  The written furlough agreement specifically
  prohibited defendant from contact or attempted contact with a named
  individual and required him to stay away from the Best Value Motel in
  Pownal, Vermont.  In addition, the agreement required defendant to abide by
  weekly furlough authorization permits ("weekly schedules") detailing his
  whereabouts, as part of his case plan and supervision program.  The
  agreement was signed by defendant and two DOC employees.  On July 19, DOC
  personnel made two unsuccessful attempts to contact defendant at his
  apartment, where he was required to be according to his approved weekly
  schedule.  The next day, when defendant could not be found, the DOC
  personnel entered defendant's apartment with the landlord's assistance;
  defendant was not there.  On July 29, 2004, the State charged defendant
  with escape in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 1501(a)(1) and filed a request for
  an arrest warrant.  Defendant was found on October 1, 2004, hiding in the
  closet of the named individual's room at the Best Value Motel in Pownal and
  was arrested.  
   
       ¶  3.  Defendant was arraigned on October 4, 2004 and assigned a
  public defender.  The matter was set for jury draw on March 3, 2005;
  however, in late February 2005, the public defender moved to withdraw as
  defendant's counsel.  The motion was granted on March 2, 2005, and conflict
  counsel was assigned to represent defendant.  The matter was reset for jury
  draw on July 21, 2005.  On July 6, 2005, conflict counsel moved to
  withdraw.  The court granted the motion on July 18, 2005 and appointed
  another attorney to represent defendant at trial.  A status conference was
  held, and the court set jury draw for September 19, 2005.  Prior to the
  commencement of jury draw, defendant filed a complaint against his attorney
  with the Professional Responsibility Board.

       ¶  4.  On September 19, the court held a preliminary hearing at
  which the court officer informed the court that defendant was in a holding
  cell but refused to come into the courtroom because he had filed a
  complaint against his attorney and did not want to be represented by him at
  jury draw.  A deputy sheriff further informed the court that defendant's
  lawyer had gone to the holding cell but defendant refused to speak with
  him.  The court declined to physically force defendant's presence,
  determining that his deliberate and voluntary act of refusing to enter the
  courtroom indicated his intention to waive his presence at trial.  Instead,
  the court made arrangements for defendant to be periodically updated on the
  jury draw's progress and given the opportunity to enter the proceedings at
  any point if he so chose.  Defense counsel did not object to the court's
  decision to proceed, and a jury was selected without defendant's presence.  

       ¶  5.  On the morning of trial, September 21, 2005, the court
  addressed defense counsel's motion to withdraw; defendant was present for
  the hearing.  Defense counsel argued that there was a conflict of interest
  because defendant had filed an ethical complaint against him.  The court,
  however, found that the complaint alone was not enough to create a conflict
  of interest necessitating appointment of new counsel, and denied the
  motion.  At the conclusion of the motion hearing, defendant left the
  courtroom and refused to return for the trial that immediately followed. 
  The court stated that it would not compel defendant's physical presence,
  and defense counsel did not object.  The court did, however, make
  arrangements for a court officer to check in with defendant every thirty to
  forty-five minutes to see if he wished to return to the courtroom.  At the
  close of the evidence, defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the basis of
  defendant's absence from the courtroom.  The court denied the motion,
  reiterating its earlier finding that defendant's deliberate acts were a
  voluntary waiver of his right to be present at trial.  Defendant was
  convicted of escape.

       ¶  6.  After trial, defendant filed a motion for acquittal pursuant
  to V.R.Cr.P. 29, claiming the State had not proven an element of the crime
  - the existence of an "order."  13 V.S.A. § 1501(b)(2).  In support of the
  motion, defendant further argued that the court erred in finding
  defendant's absence from jury draw and trial to be "knowing and voluntary,"
  denying defendant's motion for a mistrial due to his absence, and denying
  defense counsel's motion to withdraw.  The court denied the motion on all
  grounds. 
        
       ¶  7.  Following this determination, defense counsel filed another
  motion to withdraw due to irreconcilable differences and the breakdown of
  his relationship with defendant.  Counsel claimed this prevented him from
  adequately preparing defendant for sentencing and reviewing the
  pre-sentencing investigation report with him.  The court found that the
  breakdown was caused by defendant's deliberate refusal to work with counsel
  in an effort to delay proceedings, and denied the motion.

       ¶  8.  At the sentencing hearing held on December 1, 2005, the court
  sentenced defendant to eight-to-nine years to be served concurrently with
  his existing sentence, acknowledging that with good-time credit defendant's
  maximum and minimum sentences would essentially be the same and would
  preclude him from further furlough.  Defendant now appeals.  

       ¶  9.  We first address defendant's claim that the district court
  erroneously denied his motion for acquittal because the State failed to
  establish that there was a furlough "order" in effect in accordance with 28
  V.S.A. § 808.  On appeal, we review the evidence presented by the State "in
  the light most favorable to the prosecution and excluding any modifying
  evidence, and determine whether that evidence sufficiently and fairly
  supports a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."  State v. Baird,
  2006 VT 86, ¶ 13, ___ Vt. ___,