Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Brian Aubuchon’s request for additional credit toward his aggregate minimum sentence under Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. The court held that a 2013 amendment to Vermont’s sentence-credit statutes changed rather than clarified prior law and therefore did not apply retroactively. Applying the pre-amendment law, the court concluded that Aubuchon was not entitled to double credit for time served on charges sentenced consecutively to his initial sentence, notwithstanding that he remained on furlough when arrested.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Aubuchon properly used a Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 motion to challenge the legal calculation of credit for time served.
- Whether 2013 Vermont Act 4, amending 13 V.S.A. §§ 7031(b) and 7032(c)(2), applied retroactively because it allegedly clarified rather than changed prior law.
- Whether Aubuchon was entitled under the pre-Act 4 version of 13 V.S.A. § 7031(b) to duplicate credit against his consecutive sentences for time spent incarcerated on the later charges while his original sentence remained on furlough.
Holdings
- A Rule 35 motion is a proper avenue for challenging the legal determination whether a sentence is illegal because it fails to credit days spent in custody in connection with the offenses for which the defendant was sentenced.
- Act 4 amended, rather than merely clarified, the prior sentence-credit law and therefore did not apply retroactively to Aubuchon's January 2013 sentencing.
- Under the version of 13 V.S.A. § 7031(b) in effect at sentencing, a defendant incarcerated on conduct leading to conviction on new charges is entitled to credit toward only the first sentence when the new sentence is consecutive, and is not entitled to double credit merely because furlough on the first sentence was not revoked.
- State v. Kenvin is overruled to the extent it suggested that a statutory amendment rejecting this Court's prior interpretation may be applied retroactively as a clarification of the law.
Key quotations
“After the judiciary definitively and finally interprets a statute, . . . the Legislature may amend the statute to say something different. But if it does so, it changes the law; it does not merely state what the law always was.” (¶ 16)
“The Legislature may define the meaning of statutory language by enacting new law and may apply that law retroactively within constitutional bounds, “[b]ut it has no legislative authority simply to say what it did mean.”” (¶ 18)
“the crucial factor in Blondin is whether the earlier and later sentences are to be served concurrently or consecutively” (¶ 26)
Factual background
Aubuchon was serving a sentence for an Orange County larceny conviction when he was arrested and detained on additional assault, robbery, escape, and larceny charges. He remained incarcerated on bail related to the later charges while still serving the original sentence on furlough. After pleading guilty to the later charges, he received sentences that were consecutive to the original sentence, and the Department of Corrections awarded credit against the aggregate maximum but not additional credit against the aggregate minimum.
Procedural history
Aubuchon pleaded guilty to multiple offenses arising from charges filed in several Vermont criminal divisions and received sentences that were ultimately imposed consecutively to his original sentence, except that two sentences were ordered concurrent by the superior court on his Rule 35 motion. The Department of Corrections awarded 236 days of credit against the aggregate maximum but denied additional credit against the aggregate minimum. After grieving the calculation with the Department, Aubuchon sought relief under Rule 35; the superior court granted the motion in part but denied the requested additional minimum-sentence credit. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.