Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence and a special condition of probation imposed following a guilty plea for sexual assault of a minor. He argued that probation condition 43, which gave his probation officer unbridled authority over where defendant lived and worked, was overbroad. Furthermore, defendant argued the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding he would be in breach of his plea agreement if he elected to argue for a lighter prison sentence. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed defendant’s sentence apart from probation condition 43, which the Court held was imposed in plain error. The judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for the trial court to justify, make more specific, or strike. View "Vermont v. Careau" on Justia Law

Defendant Thomas Bryan appeals appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw counsel and order finding him in violation of his probation. The critical question in this case was whether sexually touching a minor violated a probation condition prohibiting violent or threatening behavior. After review, the Supreme Court held that defendant’s act constituted violent behavior, and affirmed the trial court’s rulings. View "Vermont v. Bryan" on Justia Law

Defendant Shamel Alexander appealed his conviction for trafficking heroin. He argued the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful seizure that was not supported by reasonable suspicion. Based on its review of the facts entered into evidence at trial, the Supreme Court agreed with defendant and reversed. View "Vermont v. Alexander" on Justia Law

This case concerns appellants Sandra Baird and Jared Carter's standing to challenge the City of Burlington's recently adopted “Church Street Marketplace District trespass authority” ordinance (trespass ordinance). The Marketplace District is a quasi-public entity organized in 1979 pursuant to the Burlington city charter. It includes member businesses that pay for membership through extra tax assessments and/or membership payments and it is overseen by a Marketplace Commission, a private organization consisting of nine members with an Executive Director. Despite having the character of an outdoor pedestrian mall, Church Street is nevertheless a public right-of-way and is accessible to the public twenty-four hours a day. Thus, all state criminal statutes, rules of criminal procedure, and city ordinances apply within the Marketplace District. Appellants Sandra Baird, a social activist and adjunct college professor, and Jared Carter, an adjunct law professor, are Burlington residents and licensed Vermont attorneys. Both appellants pay real property taxes to the City as well as municipal sales tax on purchases in the city. Appellants also frequent Church Street and have been opposed to the trespass ordinance since its inception. Although appellant Carter has alleged that he was threatened with enforcement of the trespass ordinance on one occasion, neither appellant has in fact received a Marketplace District notice of trespass. appellant Baird filed a complaint against the City for declaratory and injunctive relief, which appellant Carter later joined, claiming that the trespass ordinance was both unconstitutional and ultra vires. In response, the City filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, citing that neither Baird nor Carter had been directly injured by the ordinance. After a one-day hearing, the trial court granted the City’s motion to dismiss based on lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction. Appellants Sandra Baird and Jared Carter appeal a final judgment by the Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division, granting appellee City of Burlington’s (the City) motion to dismiss for lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm. View "Baird v. City of Burlington" on Justia Law

Defendant Ivan Alcide was charged with possession of heroin and cocaine and sought to suppress all evidence of drugs seized from his vehicle after a police dog indicated the presence of drugs. The trial court found that the contraband was obtained through the illegal expansion of the scope of a vehicle violation stop into a criminal drug investigation, suppressed the evidence, and dismissed the charges. The State appealed the trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion to suppress and dismiss. On appeal, the State argued that a minimal delay following the completion of a traffic stop for a dog sniff was reasonable under federal and state law and, in the alternative, that the trial court committed plain error in excluding evidence based upon an illegal detention when the evidence was unrelated to the detention itself. Defendant moved to dismiss the State's appeal on grounds the State untimely filed its notice of appeal. After review, the Supreme Court rejected defendant’s argument and affirmed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the case against defendant. View "Vermont v. Alcide" on Justia Law

In 2013, defendant Peter Goewey, then age sixty-one, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated sexual assault for repeatedly performing oral sex on a young man. At a contested sentencing hearing, defendant was sentenced to twenty years to life. Defendant challenged this sentencing decision, alleging various constitutional and procedural errors. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Goewey" on Justia Law

The State appealed Superior Court decisions to seal certain portions of competency reports prepared in connection with court ordered competency evaluations of Anthony Gotavaskas and Grant Bercik, defendants in two separate criminal cases. Gotavaskas was charged with burglary of an occupied dwelling in one docket and providing false information and operation without the owner’s consent in a second docket. At his arraignment, Gotavaskas raised the issue of his competency and the trial court ordered a competency evaluation. A competency evaluation concluded that Gotavaskas was competent to stand trial. The State offered the competency evaluation into evidence, contending that the entire report should be admitted under 13 V.S.A. 4816(e). Gotavaskas did not contest the competency finding, but he objected to the admission of the entire report and offered a redacted version excluding portions he claimed were not relevant. The State disagreed, contending that because the evaluating doctor relied upon all of the information in the report as a basis for his opinion, the entire report should be admitted for its relevancy on the issue of Gotavaskas’ competency. The court redacted the competency report to include only information regarding the evaluator’s impressions of Gotavaskas and specific findings as to competence. Bercik was charged with simple assault. He was arraigned and pled not guilty. Several months after arraignment, Bercik filed a motion for competency and sanity evaluations, which the court granted. A competency evaluation concluded that Bercik was incompetent to stand trial. A competency hearing was held, at which time the State sought a finding of incompetency and the admission of the entirety of the evaluator’s report. Although Bercik agreed that there should be a lack of competency finding, he opposed the admittance of the entire report, requesting that the court temporarily seal the report. The court made a finding of incompetency and received the evaluator’s report under seal, deferring ruling on the admission of the report pending further briefing by the parties. Although not admitted in evidence, the court based its finding of incompetence upon the conclusions contained in the report. In review of these cases, the Supreme Court found that the trial court did not make specific findings on the record as to a threshold question: “the statute contemplates that some portions of a competency report might not be relevant, and thus not required to be admitted, it does not suggest that any other application of ‘relevance’ should be used in considering what portions of a competency report are relevant for competency purposes other than that which is set forth in V.R.E. 401, the test for relevancy in Vermont courts. Whatever standard the trial court used here, it did not apply a V.R.E. 401 analysis to its decision on what portions of the reports to admit and what portions to exclude. It should have done so.” The cases were remanded for the trial court to make findings pursuant to V.R.E. 401. View "Vermont v. Gotavaskas" on Justia Law

Defendant Eric Manning was charged with possession of cocaine following a traffic stop. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the investigative detention, arguing that it was the result of an unlawful search and seizure that exceeded the scope of the suspended license investigation in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. He also moved to suppress statements made before the officer advised him of his Miranda rights, arguing that the questioning outside his vehicle amounted to a custodial interrogation. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny defendant’s motion to suppress, and affirmed his conviction. View "Vermont v. Manning" on Justia Law

Defendant Roger Perry appealed the trial court's issuance of a mittimus ordering the Department of Corrections (DOC) not to give defendant credit for time served in connection with prior convictions. The State did not challenge defendant's claim that the mittimus violated the parties' plea agreement and created an illegal sentence, but argued that because defendant has completed the time-to-serve portion of his sentence, this appeal was moot. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the appeal was not moot because defendant was still serving the challenged sentence, and that the amended mittimus violated Vermont's sentencing statute. View "Vermont v. Perry" on Justia Law

Petitioner's state-appointed counsel filed an untimely notice of appeal of the trial court's denial of petitioner's first post-conviction relief (PCR) petition. It was uncontested that by failing to timely file a notice of appeal, counsel performed well below any recognized standard of care. The Supreme Court has held previously that where counsel negligently fails to perfect an appeal, the defendant has not knowingly and intelligently waived the appeal "there is per se ineffective counsel." The question this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether petitioner had a remedy for his counsel's failure to perfect his PCR appeal. Petitioner argued that his first PCR should be reinstated because the statutory right to PCR counsel includes a minimal level of competence, which was plainly violated in this case. The State supported petitioner's request to reverse the trial court and reinstate the first appeal. "Because this case presents an egregious example of injustice," the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the superior court with directions that petitioner's initial PCR be reinstated with a renewed opportunity for petitioner to file a notice of appeal. View "In re Babson" on Justia Law