In re Chandler
193 Vt. 246
| Vt. | 2013Background
- Chandler was convicted in 2009 of impeding a public officer, a Vermont felony under 13 V.S.A. § 3001.
- He was sentenced March 30, 2010 to 29–30 days in jail and sought a stay pending merits appeal; stay was denied.
- We reversed the denial of the stay and ordered release pending the merits appeal, which alleged errors in indictment, juror selection, and jury instructions.
- In January 2011 we affirmed the conviction; the trial court ordered Chandler to serve the remainder starting March 16, 2011, and he served the remainder starting March 11, 2011 after reporting to jail.
- Chandler filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) under 13 V.S.A. § 7131 in March 2011; the petition sought ineffective assistance of trial counsel and extraordinary relief.
- The State moved to dismiss in July 2011 on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction because Chandler was no longer in custody; the court dismissed in February 2012 without prejudice after confirming completion of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether release from custody moots a PCR filed before expiration | Chandler argues jurisdiction remains because he filed while in custody for the challenged conviction and collateral consequences exist. | State argues mootness due to expiration of custodial sentence and lack of live controversy. | Petition remains within jurisdiction; release does not moot the PCR when filed during custody for the challenged conviction. |
| Whether filing in custody under the challenged conviction preserves live relief | Chandler contends the court can provide relief (e.g., vacate/retry) even after release due to ongoing collateral consequences. | State contends mootness applies once custodial sentence ends absent sufficient collateral consequences. | Jurisdiction exists and live relief is possible; there is no automatic mootness upon release. |
| What constitutes 'custody' for § 7131 jurisdiction when challenging a conviction | Chandler argues that significant restraints on liberty (collateral consequences) can satisfy custody even if imprisonment ends. | State contends custody requires physical confinement or a direct statutory constraint tied to the challenged conviction. | Custody can include significant nonincarcerative restraints; collateral consequences can sustain jurisdiction. |
| Whether Collette governs mootness and should be overruled | Collette should be distinguished or overruled; relief should be available when a challenged conviction is still in play. | State argues Collette appropriately bars relief when the enhanced sentence has expired. | Collette is overruled for this case; the petition remains viable when filed during custody for the challenged conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Collette, 185 Vt. 210 (2008 VT 136) (PCR mootness; finality vs. relief when challenged conviction in custody)
- Boskind v. State, 174 Vt. 184 (2002) (remedies for enhanced sentences; finality interests)
- Stewart v. Stewart, 140 Vt. 351 (1981) (in-custody for purposes of § 7131 when out-of-state or enhanced sentence tied to conviction)
- McMann v. State, 133 Vt. 288 (1975) (ineffective assistance claims implicated in PCR proceedings)
- In re Bashaw, 129 Vt. 393 (1971) (PCR considerations even when release from confinement is not among possible dispositions)