Source: https://ads1.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=2017-267&s=VT&d=120717
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 11:13:04+00:00

Document:
the jury found defendant guilty.
order correcting defendant’s sentence to fifteen years to life. Defendant timely appeals.
oral argument. Defendant, on his own and through counsel, makes several arguments on appeal.
address each argument in turn.
complainant was under thirteen years old, which is an element of the crime under 13 V.S.A.
thirteen years old when the offending conduct occurred.
confusingly, there are two similarly numbered sections in Title 13: § 3253(a)(8) and § 3253a(a)(8).
informing him that it had done so. He also points out that § 3253a was not in effect until 2009.
State’s attorney states that the State charged him with conduct “in violation of 13 V.S.A.
(amending statute to raise victim’s age from ten years old to thirteen years old).
Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, and thus we conclude there is no Brady violation.
about ineffective assistance of counsel.
(authorizing prisoner to file petition for post-conviction relief with civil division of superior court).
authority to regulate admission and practice of law before Vermont courts” (citation omitted)).
(setting requirements for adequate briefing).
Section 4501(a)’s language with regard to aggravated sexual assault has not changed since 1990.
See 1989, No. 292 (Adj. Sess.), § 1.
to reduce sentence within ninety days of imposing sentence).
Double Jeopardy Clause. Further, defendant is incorrect that the sentence correction was untimely.
within seven days of when the initial sentence was imposed, as instructed by Rule 35(c).
substantial rights and result[ed] in prejudice to the defendant”).
defendant’s criminal proceeding. State v. Grace, 2016 VT 113, ¶ 12, 204 Vt. 68, 165 A.3d 122.
nothing shall be done in the absence of the prisoner.”).
motion to correct an illegal sentence without a hearing.
defendant’s presence was not required when correcting an illegal sentence. Id. at 720; D.C. Super.
* District of Columbia Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(b)(4) states, “A defendant need not be present [when] . . . [t]he proceeding involves the correction or reduction of sentence under Rule 35.” At the time of the Mooney court, this language was located in Rule 43(c)(4). Mooney, 938 A.2d at 713 n.3.
motion, we consider whether defendant’s absence affected the fairness of the sentence correction.
undermine its fairness and accuracy.” Id. ¶ 12.
allowed an opportunity to appear before the court and defend against the amendment.” State v.
little if any purpose is served” by requiring an additional hearing before correcting the sentence.
though court had no discretion in correcting sentence).
trial court held a motion hearing, at which defendant and his counsel were again present.
absence could not “thwart” a “fair and just hearing.” Stincer, 482 U.S. at 745; see also Caille v.
prisoner.”). The court committed no error.

References: § 3253
 § 3253
 § 3253
 § 1
 v. 
 v.

 v.