In re Manosh
108 A.3d 212
Vt.2014Background
- Petitioner Nick Manosh pleaded no contest to a first-offense DUI in 1992 after consultation with counsel.
- Before sentencing, Manosh signed a Waiver of Arraignment and Request to Enter Plea detailing rights he would waive by pleading.
- At the sentencing hearing, the court acknowledged receipt of the waiver form but conducted only a brief exchange with Manosh and did not address Rule 11 rights in depth.
- Manosh was later convicted a third time in 2010 (a felony DUI) and used the 1992 misdemeanor conviction as a predicate offense.
- In 2012, Manosh sought post-conviction relief (PCR), arguing Rule 11 noncompliance by the 1992 sentencing court.
- PCR court vacated the 1992 conviction; the State appealed contending the waiver and colloquy were substantially compliant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 43(c)(2) permits absence waivers to substitute Rule 11 colloquy | State: waiver can substitute for presence under Rule 43(c)(2) | Manosh: personal Rule 11 address is required; waiver cannot substitute | No; Rule 43(c)(2) cannot substitute for Rule 11 colloquy |
| Whether personal in-court Rule 11 colloquy was required or could be waived here | State: waiver plus signed forms suffice under Morrissette | Manosh: presence plus in-court discussion required under Rule 11 | Personal in-court address required; colloquy was not substantially complied |
| Whether Morrissette is still controlling or overruled | State: Morrissette supports substantial compliance with a signed waiver | Manosh: Morrissette should be overruled; stricter Rule 11 requirements apply | Morrissette overruled; waiver cannot substitute for Rule 11 colloquy |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. (1969)) (necessity of intelligent, voluntary plea)
- State v. Morrissette, 170 Vt. 569 (1999) (waiver forms can support substantial compliance in some contexts)
- State v. Parks, 2008 VT 65 (Vt. 2008) (wholesale Rule 11 noncompliance warrants reversal even without prejudice)
- In re Hemingway, 2014 VT 42 (Vt. 2014) (substantial compliance with Rule 11 may be sufficient if prejudice absent)
- State v. Delisle, 171 Vt. 128 (2000) (presumption of regularity; defendant must show invalid plea evidence)
- In re Stocks, 2014 VT 27 (Vt. 2014) (Rule 11(g) written record of advice and voluntariness)
- State v. Willard-Freckleton, 2007 VT 67A (Vt. 2007) (precedent on Rule 11 application and waiver forms)