Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court held that the trial court committed plain error by relying at sentencing on conduct underlying a prior acquittal without providing advance notice or an opportunity to respond under Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3). The court found that the undisclosed acquitted conduct materially influenced the sentence and vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing before a different judge. The court did not reach the defendant's gross-disproportionality challenge.
Holdings
- The sentencing court committed plain error by materially relying on undisclosed conduct underlying a prior acquittal without providing defendant advance notice and a reasonable opportunity to rebut the information as required by Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3). The error required vacatur of the sentence and resentencing before a different judge.
Questions Presented
- Whether the sentencing court committed plain error by relying on conduct underlying a prior acquittal without advance notice and an opportunity for defendant to rebut the information.
- Whether defendant's sentence was grossly disproportionate to the offenses.
Disposition
vacated
Cases Cited (21)
- State v. Ingerson, 2004 VT 36, 176 Vt. 428, 852 A.2d 567(followed)
- State v. Ramsay, 146 Vt. 70, 78, 499 A.2d 15, 20 (1985)(followed)
- State v. Yoh, 2006 VT 49A, 180 Vt. 317, 910 A.2d 853(followed)
- State v. Pellerin, 164 Vt. 376, 670 A.2d 255 (1995)(distinguished)
- United States v. Dunigan, 555 F.3d 501, 506 (5th Cir. 2009)(persuasive)
- United States v. Phaneuf, 91 F.3d 255, 263 (1st Cir. 1996)(persuasive)
- United States v. Lovelace, 565 F.3d 1080, 1092-93 (8th Cir. 2009)(persuasive)
- United States v. Hayes, 171 F.3d 389, 395 (6th Cir. 1999)(persuasive)
- United States v. Valentine, 21 F.3d 395, 398 (11th Cir. 1994)(persuasive)
- United States v. Curran, 926 F.2d 59, 63-64 (1st Cir. 1991)(persuasive)
Showing top 10 of 21.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…