Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded a summary judgment order denying Anthony Bridger’s petition for post-conviction relief. The court held that Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f) requires an on-the-record recitation of facts underlying the charged offenses and an admission by the defendant to those facts. The court rejected the use of a “substantial compliance” standard for Rule 11(f) claims and concluded that Bridger’s general agreement that affidavits provided a factual basis was insufficient.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the guilty-plea colloquy satisfied Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f) when the defendant generally agreed that multiple affidavits supplied a factual basis but did not admit to the specific facts underlying each element of the burglary charges.
- Whether the PCR court properly granted summary judgment to the State on the Rule 11(f) challenge.
- What remedy was appropriate for the Rule 11(f) violation.
Holdings
- To establish an adequate factual basis for a guilty plea under Rule 11(f), the record must contain some recitation of the facts underlying the charge and some admission by the defendant to those facts as they relate to the law for every element of the charged offense.
- The substantial-compliance standard does not apply to Rule 11(f) claims.
- The plea colloquy did not satisfy Rule 11(f) because Bridger made only a generic admission to unspecified facts in multiple affidavits and did not admit to facts demonstrating the elements of each burglary, including specific intent.
Key quotations
“"substantial compliance" has no place in Rule 11(f) claims.” (176 A.3d at 496-497)
“an “adequate factual basis” sufficient to demonstrate voluntariness must consist of some recitation on the record of the facts underlying the charge and some admission by the defendant to those facts.” (176 A.3d at 497)
“Although that evidence may be contained in the affidavits, that is not sufficient: the record must demonstrate that petitioner understood the facts “as they relate to the law for all elements of the . . . charges to which [petitioner] pleaded.”” (176 A.3d at 499)
Factual background
Bridger was charged in three Vermont counties with numerous burglaries. In February 2010, he pleaded guilty to sixteen Rutland County burglary counts under a plea agreement; the other Rutland charges were dismissed, and he received concurrent sentences. During the plea colloquy, the court described the charges and asked whether police affidavits provided a factual basis for each essential element, and Bridger answered yes, but he did not admit to the specific facts in the affidavits, including facts showing specific intent.
Procedural history
Bridger pleaded guilty to sixteen Rutland County burglary counts pursuant to a plea agreement, and the remaining Rutland charges were dismissed. In 2015, he filed a post-conviction-relief petition arguing that the plea colloquy failed to establish a factual basis under Rule 11(f). The PCR court granted summary judgment to the State, and the Vermont Supreme Court reversed, entered summary judgment for Bridger, and remanded for entry of judgment allowing him to withdraw the plea in Docket No. 1067-7-09 Rdcr.
Remand instructions
Remand for entry of judgment allowing petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea in Docket No. 1067-7-09 Rdcr.