In re Bruyette., 96 A.3d 1151

Petitioner filed a PCR alleging ineffective assistance of counsel due to plea-bargain misrepresentation about maximum exposure (claims of 25 years vs 85 years in sentencing).
Superior Court appointed Defender General’s Prisoners’ Rights Office to represent petitioner; conflict counsel later assigned.
State moved to dismiss as second/successive PCR; Defender General argued the theory was new; State argued Lafler v. Cooper did not create a new right.
Bailey held state-funded counsel may withdraw when claims are not warranted by existing law; emphasized attorney review process by Defender General.
Court held 13 V.S.A. § 5233, as amended in 2004, applies; petition filed in 2012 constitutes a new proceeding; grant of leave to withdraw granted; no new publicly funded counsel appointed; potential reevaluation possible if meritorious claims emerge.
concurred opinions discuss conflicts and policy concerns about Defender General’s process and right to replacement counsel; plurality grants withdrawal but leaves door open for reevaluation if meritorious claims arise.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 5233(a)(3) allows withdrawal of publicly funded counsel.	Petitioner argues Bailey governs withdrawal; the Defender General’s review should not foreclose his meritorious claims.	Defender General argues representation would violate Rule 3.1/Rule 11(b)(2) and that the claims lack merit under § 5233.	Yes; withdrawal granted under Bailey framework.
Whether Bailey applies to this PCR appeal and the Defender General’s process.	Bailey's process should be applicable; public defender’s prior review may be defective.	Bailey controls public funding withdrawals and allows reassessment if meritorious.	Bailey applies; withdrawal proper, but reassessment possibility reserved.
Whether pre- vs post-2004 amendment to § 5233 affects the right to counsel.	Petitioner argues pre-amendment rights should apply; earlier petitions not barred.	Current petition is a new proceeding post-2004 amendment; § 5233 applies as amended.	§ 5233 as amended applies.
Whether the Defender General can refuse future representation due to conflicts or merit standards.	Defender General’s refusal should be subject to scrutiny; replacement counsel should be provided.	Conflicts and merit standards justify refusal; policy concerns support no new appointment.	Petitioner entitled to replacement counsel per concurrence; majority leaves room for reevaluation but not appointment.

Bailey v. Vermont Supreme Court, 187 Vt. 176, 992 A.2d 276 (2009 VT 122) (public funding for counsel in PCR; withdrawal when claims not warranted by existing law)
In re Gould, 177 Vt. 7, 852 A.2d 632 (2004 VT 46) (pre-amendment right to counsel in PCR)
In re S.C., 195 Vt. 415, 88 A.3d 1220 (2014 VT 7) (standard for evaluating withdrawal and frivolity under § 5233/3.1/11(b))
In re Crannell, 192 A.3d 632 (2012 VT 85) (discussion of counsel withdrawal and procedural posture in PCR)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 111 S. Ct. 2549 (1991) (constitutional right to counsel in collateral review limitations)