Chandler v. State, No. 114-3-11 Wmcv (Teachout, J., Oct. 3, 2014) 

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text 

and the accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.] 

STATE OF VERMONT 

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION 

Windham Unit Docket No. 114-3-11 Wmcv 

CHARLES CHANDLER, 

Petitioner 

v. 

STATE OF VERMONT, 

Respondent 

 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

In this post-conviction relief case, Petitioner Charles Chandler seeks to vacate a 

criminal conviction on the grounds that the lawyer who represented him provided 

ineffective assistance of counsel. On September 5, 2014, a summary judgment ruling 

was issued denying Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court ruled on a 

portion of Respondent’s Motion and set the case for oral argument on a specific issue in 

the motion. The hearing took place on October 3, 2014. Petitioner represented himself, 

and Respondent was represented by Attorney Tracy Shriver. 

 The facts are set forth in the Decision of September 5, 2014. 

 The issue is whether Petitioner needs expert testimony to succeed on his claim 

that his lawyer’s performance prior to and during trial fell below an objective standard of 

reasonableness informed by prevailing professional norms, and that such deficient 

performance prejudiced the Petitioner such that the outcome would have been different 

without the substandard performance. 

In the ruling of September 5, 2014, the Court has already determined that expert 

testimony was not needed to show that the attorney had a bias against Petitioner based on 

a portion of a telephone voicemail message left by the attorney. However, even assuming 

that the attorney had bias against Petitioner, a petitioner must also prove the second prong 

of the test, i.e., that the result of the trial would have been different. The voicemail bias, 

even if believed, would not be sufficient to prove that the outcome of the trial would have 

been different without additional facts showing a substandard performance on the part of 

the attorney in conducting the defense of Petitioner prior to and at trial. 

While bias based on the voicemail is not sufficient by itself to support the claim, 

such evidence may be pertinent if there is also evidence of substandard performance, but 

Petitioner is still obliged to present facts to show a substandard performance. The 

question for oral argument was whether an expert is needed to testify concerning the 

three grounds on which Petitioner alleged the attorney’s performance was substandard: 
2 

failure to object to the Information charging Petitioner with impeding public officers; 

failure to obtain certain exculpatory evidence from a prior lawyer for Petitioner, and 

failure to object to jury instructions and closing arguments during trial. 

These three allegations all require a criminal defense attorney familiar with 

prevailing professional norms to testify about the standard of care required of a criminal 

defense attorney under the circumstances of this case. The Court cannot determine 

whether Petitioner’s attorney failed to meet that standard without an evidentiary basis for 

determining what that standard is as it relates to raising an objection to the content of an 

information, requesting materials from a former attorney, and making objections to the 

content of a jury instruction and closing argument. Expert testimony is needed in order 

for Petitioner to meet his burden of proof, both as to what the standard is in relation to the 

specific allegations in the case, and whether the attorney’s actions fell below that 

standard and further whether the outcome would have been different without the 

substandard performance. This is not one of the rare situations in which ineffective 

assistance can be presumed without expert testimony. 

Since Petitioner failed to make a timely disclosure of an expert who would 

provide such testimony, Petitioner is unable to succeed on his claim. 

ORDER 

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. 

 

 

Dated at Newfane this 3rd day of October, 2014. 

 

 Honorable Mary Miles Teachout 

Superior Court Judge