In re Laws, 2004 VT 66

2004 VT 66
neutral
Case details
Full caption
In re Richard J. Laws
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Vermont (VT)
Court
Vermont Supreme Court
Decided
2004
Disposition
Affirmed
In re Richard J. Lawshttps://www.vermontjudiciary.org/UPEO2001-2005/eo04118.aspx[3/10/2017 4:16:04 PM]Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.ENTRY ORDERSUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-118SEPTEMBER TERM, 2004In re Richard J. Laws}}}}}}}}}}APPEALED FROM:Washington Superior CourtDOCKET NO. 393-7-00 WncvTrial Judge: Alan W. Cook In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:Defendant appeals from a summary judgment rejecting defendant' s collateral attack on his conviction and sentence forkidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and aggravated assault. Defendant argues that he was unaware that by pleadingguilty he waived any claim based on double jeopardy grounds. We affirm because defendant' s claim is barred by hisguilty plea under United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989).On February 26, 1993, defendant pled guilty to one count of kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and aggravatedassault. The crimes occurred in the late evening of June 19, 1992. While driving from Mad Mountain Tavern inWaitsfield that evening, the victim' s tires went flat; the evidence suggested that defendant himself had punctured hertires. Defendant pulled up to her stopped vehicle and offered her a ride, which the victim accepted. Rather than bring herhome, however, defendant drove the victim to the Granville Gulf area where he raped her. After raping her, defendantdrove the victim to a more remote location and beat her severely with a blunt instrument. The victim left behind a largedeposit of blood with head hair that the police later discovered during their investigation. The victim' s injuries were lifethreatening and included a fractured skull.In July 2000, defendant petitioned the Washington Superior Court for habeas corpus relief. Defendant asserted that hisguilty plea violated his rights under the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. The State moved forsummary judgment, arguing that defendant waived any double jeopardy claim when he pled guilty. The court agreed,and entered summary judgment for the State. This appeal followed.In 1989, the United States Supreme Court held that a guilty plea waives a defendant' s rights under the double jeopardyclause. United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 565, 574 (1989). The Supreme Court explained that when accepting a pleaof guilty, the trial court does not have to ensure that the defendant made a conscious waiver of all potential defenses tothe crimes charged. Id. at 573. A guilty plea necessarily means that the defendant has confessed to the facts underlyingthe charge as well as the fact that he committed the crimes for which he is entering a guilty plea. Id. at 569. In otherwords, by pleading guilty, defendant has agreed that he committed two distinct offenses for which separate sentencesmay be imposed. In this case, therefore, the court properly entered summary judgment for the State in light of theholding in Broce.Defendant also argues that we must reverse the superior court because, if we viewed a videotape of the plea hearing, wewould see that he was denied his rights under Rule 11 of the criminal rules of procedure1. Rule 11 sets forth therequirements that must be met before the court may accept a plea of guilty. V.R.Cr.P. 11. The Rule seeks to ensure thatguilty pleas are voluntary and are made with knowledge of the plea' s consequences. V.R.Cr.P. 11; see In re Andres
In re Richard J. Lawshttps://www.vermontjudiciary.org/UPEO2001-2005/eo04118.aspx[3/10/2017 4:16:04 PM]Torres, 2004 VT 66, § 9 (explaining that guilty pleas must be knowing and voluntary). Defendant did not argue anyRule 11 defect before the superior court, however. We will not address arguments that were not raised and decided bythe superior court in the first instance. State v. Jones, 160 Vt. 440, 448 (1993).Affirmed.BY THE COURT:_______________________________________Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice_______________________________________Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice_______________________________________Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice (Ret.),Specially AssignedFootnote1. Defendant moved this Court to view the videotape of his plea colloquy. The State did not oppose the motion. Forthe reasons stated in this entry order, we deny defendant’s motion as moot
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access