In re Crannell, 60 A.3d 632

Crannell convicted of first-degree murder (1995); PCR filed in 2001 in Rutland Superior Court alleging multiple grounds for relief.
Defendant's counsel repeatedly withdrew or were replaced over about nine years, with ethics conflicts and court delays.
In 2010, defense counsel withdrew under Bailey (13 V.S.A. § 5233(a)(3)); trial court allowed pro se representation and interlocutory appeal ensued.
Appellant and amici argued over whether the pre-amendment Gould right to assigned counsel still governs, or if Bailey’s post-amendment framework controls.
Court held that the older § 5233 (Gould) governs Crannell’s right; reversed Bailey-based withdrawal and remanded for Gould-consistent proceedings.
Court noted significant systemic delays and urged Defender General reforms; concurrence argued waiver issues should be decided differently.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which § 5233 governs Crannell’s right to counsel	Crannell (Gould) pre-amendment right still applies	Bailey controls post-amendment framework	Older § 5233 applies; Crannell retains representation rights

Gould v. State, 177 Vt. 7 (VT 2004) (pre-amendment right to counsel in PCR regardless of merit)
In re Bailey, 187 Vt. 176 (VT 2009) (amendment limits right to counsel to nonfrivolous claims; discretionary with Defender General)
People v. Demarest, 801 P.2d 6 (Colo. App. 1990) (advocates waivers/withdrawals and confidentiality of representation)