In re Brian Shannon, 2021 VT 91

Shannon had two prior felonies; charged in 2012 and again in 2013 with multiple offenses including aggravated domestic assault and a felony DWI.
In Feb 2014 Shannon pleaded no-contest to three felonies (one-to-five years; two consecutive) and to ten additional counts receiving deferred sentences (no domestic-violence programming as part of the plea).
Shannon later learned DOC required domestic-violence programming as part of release timing, moved to withdraw plea, and then filed a PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance because counsel misadvised him about the possibility of a habitual-offender enhancement at trial.
In July 2020 the PCR court found counsel ineffective, found prejudice, and vacated all thirteen convictions entered in Feb 2014.
Shannon had completed the ten deferred sentences (Oct 2014–Oct 2019) without violation; those ten charges were expunged by operation of law. He then moved to amend the PCR judgment to preserve the completed deferred sentences; the PCR court amended its judgment, vacating only the three sentenced felonies and leaving the ten deferred/expunged charges intact.
The State appealed, arguing Shannon materially breached the plea agreement by seeking relief only as to some counts and that contract remedies should return both parties to their pre-plea positions (i.e., reinstate all thirteen charges). The Supreme Court affirmed the PCR court, holding it lacked jurisdiction over the expired/deferred charges.

Issue	Shannon's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the PCR court had jurisdiction to grant relief as to charges for which Shannon received and successfully completed deferred sentences	Shannon argued the deferred sentences were not "under sentence" so PCR relief as to those counts was unavailable; he sought to preserve completed deferred outcomes	State argued the plea vacatur should undo the entire plea agreement, returning both parties to pre-plea positions for all counts	Court held Shannon was not "in custody under sentence" for the ten completed deferred sentences (per Yates), so §7131 deprived the PCR court of jurisdiction over those counts; amendment leaving those charges intact was proper
Whether Shannon’s partial PCR challenge constituted a material breach of the plea agreement requiring reinstatement of all counts under contract law	Shannon argued he could seek relief as to convictions still "under sentence" and that jurisdictional limits barred relief for the deferred counts	State argued seeking PCR relief for only some counts materially breached the plea agreement and forfeited any favorable plea outcomes on other counts	Court declined to reach the contract remedy argument because lack of statutory jurisdiction was dispositive; it cannot be expanded by contract theory

State v. Yates, 169 Vt. 20 (1999) (deferred sentence is not a sentence; defendant not "in custody under sentence" unless deferred sentence is revoked)
In re FitzGerald, 212 Vt. 135 (2020) (standard of review for pure questions of law in PCR jurisdictional analysis)
In re Chandler, 193 Vt. 246 (2013) (statutory framework for PCR jurisdiction under §7131)
In re LaMountain, 170 Vt. 642 (2000) (threshold jurisdictional inquiry under §7131 precludes reaching merits when petitioner not "in custody under sentence")