In re Kimmick, 72 A.3d 337

William Kimmick appeals a PCR denial alleging ineffective assistance at sentencing and challenging PCR-counsel withdrawal and Defender General merit-review procedures.
Kimmick pleaded guilty to a reduced manslaughter charge after a 2004 murder case and received a 14–15 year sentence following a 2005 sentencing hearing; appellate review of the sentence had previously affirmed.
In April 2008, Kimmick filed a pro se PCR petition alleging multiple deficiencies by trial counsel at sentencing, including coercive allocution and misstatements in the PSI and psychiatric evaluation.
The trial court appointed PCR counsel; over time, counsel sought to withdraw after concluding no colorable merit existed and after Defender General screening found no basis for continued representation; the Defender General declined to fund further representation.
Kimmick's amended petition and deposition-based evidence were insufficient to establish ineffective assistance; the trial court granted summary judgment for the State in October 2011; the Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding the withdrawal was proper and there was no prejudice from counsel’s alleged deficiencies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PCR counsel’s withdrawal was proper	Kimmick argues withdrawal was arbitrary without merit	The court found withdrawal supported by records and expert review; not arbitrary	Withdrawal proper and based on informed, non-arbitrary review
Whether trial counsel’s sentencing conduct was ineffective	Petitioner claims counsel’s actions prejudiced outcome at sentencing	Record showed substantial victim-history evidence; counsel’s strategy not prejudicial	No prejudice; no ineffective assistance established
Whether Defender General merit-review procedures violated due process	Amicus asserts due process flaws in merit-review	Procedures satisfied minimal due process; no enacted rights violated	No due-process violation established
Whether the judgment should be disturbed due to reliance on extended review or related due-process concerns	Extended time and review process implicated petitioner’s rights	Record supports reasonableness of proceedings; no prejudicial error	No basis to disturb judgment; procedures deemed adequate

In re Bailey, 2009 VT 122 (Vt. 2009) (withdrawal of appointed counsel not required to be elaborated; protections limited)
In re Barrows, 2007 VT 9 (Vt. 2007) (standard for expert services independent from § 5233; separate considerations)
In re LaBounty, 2005 VT 6 (Vt. 2005) (preference for upholding trial court findings absent clear error in ineffective-assistance analysis)
In re Stevens, 144 Vt. 250 (Vt. 1984) (allocution-related information and prejudice considerations at sentencing)
In re Crannell, 2012 VT 85 (Vt. 2012) (reference to timeliness and waiver concerns in Defender General review)
In re Unnamed Defendant, 2011 VT 25 (Vt. 2011) (case about whether litigation becomes moot when no effective relief is available)