148 A.3d 574
Vt.2016Background
- Chandler was convicted in 2009 of impeding a public officer; conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Chandler filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition in 2011 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the Supreme Court held the case was not moot and remanded.
- On remand the trial court granted summary judgment for the State, concluding Chandler lacked expert proof for most claims and could not show prejudice for the remainder; the Supreme Court affirmed.
- In May 2015 Chandler filed a "Petition for Extraordinary Relief" styled under V.R.C.P. 75 and V.R.A.P. 21 asserting his lawyer’s unethical acts and collateral consequences from the conviction, and seeking vacation of the conviction.
- The State moved to dismiss as a successive PCR barred by 13 V.S.A. § 7134; the trial court granted dismissal and denied Chandler’s motion to disqualify the judge.
- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed: Chandler’s petition, despite its label, was a successive PCR raising previously decided claims and thus barred; disqualification was unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 21/Rule 75 petition is a PCR | Chandler: the petition is an independent extraordinary-relief action under Rule 21/75, not a PCR. | State: substance controls; petition challenges conviction and repeats PCR claims, so it is a PCR. | Court: Petition is effectively a PCR and subject to PCR statute. |
| Whether § 7134 bars this pleading as successive relief | Chandler: § 7134 should not apply to an extraordinary-relief petition. | State: § 7134 bars relitigation of claims decided on the merits in an earlier PCR. | Court: § 7134 applies; relitigation barred. |
| Whether prior summary judgment was a decision on the merits | Chandler: summary judgment was not a merits decision and cannot preclude relief. | State: summary judgment is a final decision on the merits. | Court: summary judgment is a merits decision; it precludes relitigation. |
| Whether trial judge should be disqualified | Chandler: judge made statements/acts and is listed as a witness, creating bias/conflict. | State: no evidence of bias; mere listing as a witness is insufficient. | Court: Presumption of judicial integrity not overcome; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Towne, 182 Vt. 614, 938 A.2d 1205 (Vt. 2007) (motion labeled extraordinary relief treated as PCR when substance repeats prior claims)
- In re Laws, 182 Vt. 66, 918 A.2d 1210 (Vt. 2007) (limits on successive PCR petitions)
- Mitchell v. NBC, 553 F.2d 265 (2d Cir. 1977) (summary judgment constitutes a final decision on the merits)
- Ball v. Melsur Corp., 161 Vt. 35, 633 A.2d 705 (Vt. 1993) (presumption of judge’s honesty and burden on movant to show bias)