In re Stocks
196 Vt. 160
| Vt. | 2014Background
- Alvin Lee Stocks pleaded guilty in June 2009 to: operating without owner’s consent, second-offense DUI, possession of marijuana, and domestic assault pursuant to a plea agreement.
- In July 2011 Stocks filed a pro se post-conviction relief (PCR) petition; counsel was later appointed and Stocks moved for summary judgment.
- Stocks argued the plea colloquy failed Rule 11(f) because the trial court did not elicit a factual basis from him, and failed Rule 11(c)(1) because the court did not expressly state the lack-of-consent element for the operating-without-consent charge.
- The trial court’s plea colloquy recited elements and some factual summaries (including the prosecutor reading parts of affidavits) and confirmed Stocks understood the charges; Stocks pleaded guilty but did not personally admit facts beyond saying “guilty.”
- The PCR court granted summary judgment to the State, finding substantial compliance with Rule 11; Stocks appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stocks) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11(f) required the trial court to elicit the defendant’s own admission of facts establishing each element before entering judgment | Trial court failed to obtain Stocks’ personal admission of the factual elements; plea lacks factual basis | Explanation of elements and Stocks’ acknowledgment plus his guilty plea satisfied factual-basis requirement | Court held Rule 11(f) requires the court to elicit or obtain defendant’s admission (or equivalent) to support factual basis; mere understanding plus guilty plea is insufficient; reverse |
| Whether a defendant must show prejudice to collaterally attack a plea for Rule 11(f) violation | No prejudice need be shown for Rule 11(f) defects | Argued Stock’s violation was technical and harmless; prejudice required | Court reaffirmed no prejudice showing is required for Rule 11(f) collateral attacks |
| Whether a prosecutor’s recital of facts or affidavits alone can satisfy Rule 11(f) without defendant’s admission | Court must obtain defendant’s admission even if facts appear in affidavits or prosecutor’s recital | State argued prosecutor’s factual recitation and defendant’s understanding suffice | Court held prosecutor’s recital may supply facts but defendant must subsequently admit them on the record |
| Whether failure to recite “lack of consent” as an element of operating without owner’s consent was reviewed | Stocks contended the element was not adequately explained | State contended naming the offense conveyed the element | Court did not reach this alternate claim because it reversed on Rule 11(f) grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Yates, 726 A.2d 483 (Vt. 1999) (court must personally address defendant and obtain admissions supporting each element)
- In re Miller, 975 A.2d 1226 (Vt. 2009) (Rule 11(f) ensures defendant’s understanding that admitted conduct violates the law; factual-basis requirement is absolute)
- State v. Cleary, 824 A.2d 509 (Vt. 2003) (substantial-compliance standard for collateral Rule 11 challenges)
- In re Kasper, 483 A.2d 608 (Vt. 1984) (record must show elements explained and factual basis admitted)
- In re Dunham, 479 A.2d 144 (Vt. 1984) (no prejudice requirement for collateral attacks based on Rule 11(f) violations)