In re Hemingway
97 A.3d 896
Vt.2014Background
- Petitioner Hemingway seeks post-conviction relief to vacate convictions based on a change of plea following a plea agreement.
- PCR court granted summary judgment, ruling the change-of-plea colloquy failed Rule 11 and was a fundamental error.
- State appeals arguing the colloquy substantially complied with Rule 11 and the plea was voluntary; petitioner failed to show prejudice.
- Plea involved one felony guilty plea and multiple VCRs; several charges were dismissed under the agreement; the court explained rights and sentencing, but did not directly inquire about voluntariness.
- VOP proceedings and subsequent counsel explanations suggested petitioner negotiated terms and expected release timing; documents support voluntariness despite not asking about coercion.
- Court holds there was substantial compliance with Rule 11; no per se prejudice shown; remands to consider other PCR grounds; reverses summary judgment for Hemingway.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to directly inquire about voluntariness was fundamental error | Hemingway argues Rule 11(d) violation is plain error | State contends substantial compliance and voluntariness shown | No; not per se reversible; require prejudice or totality of circumstances supports voluntariness |
| Whether totality of circumstances supports voluntariness despite missing explicit voluntariness inquiry | Total record supports voluntariness | Circumstances sufficient to find voluntariness | Yes; volitional record supported by counsel, post-plea conduct, and lack of coercion evidence |
| Whether Parks dictates reversal for any Rule 11 defect in PCR when core Rule 11 goals unmet | Parks requires reversal for wholesale noncompliance | Parks misapplied; distinctions apply | No; Parks not controlling under these facts; no wholesale failure |
| Whether prejudice must be shown in PCR when Rule 11(d) is violated | No prejudice shown; error non-prejudicial | Prejudice must be shown or the plea turnd on its own terms | Prejudice not shown; reversal on this basis denied |
| Whether counsel involvement invalidates voluntariness determination in Rule 11(d) analysis | Counsel presence supports voluntariness; not determinative | Counsel’s role insufficient to dispel potential coercion absent direct inquiry | Counsel presence alone not dispositive; still requires proper Rule 11(d) inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Parks, 2008 VT 65 (VT (2008)) (plain error standard for Rule 11 core concerns; wholesale failure leads to reversal)
- State v. Thompson, 167 Vt. 383 (VT (1998)) (prejudice standard in Rule 11 PCR; substantial compliance doctrine otherwise)
- In re Quinn, 174 Vt. 562 (VT (2002)) (consideration of totality of circumstances in voluntariness)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. (1969)) (affirmative showing of voluntariness; Boykin governs direct plea validity)
- In re Stocks, 2014 VT 27 (VT (2014)) (Rule 11 core concerns; one core violation may warrant relief in PCR)