Rheaume v. Pallito
30 A.3d 1263
Vt.2011Background
- Petitioner Allen Rheaume, an inmate serving a life sentence, challenges his DOC classification as a high-risk sex offender and related programming requirements.
- The Sex Offender Review Committee designated him high-risk in 2007; petitioner alleges he never received the notice and thus did not timely appeal.
- In 2009 the DOC determined programming to be required for potential early release and petitioner appealed under Rule 75 in 2009.
- The trial court dismissed, holding Rule 75 review unavailable for both designation and programming decisions; petitioner appealed.
- The Vermont Supreme Court held programming decisions are nonreviewable under Rule 75, but designation decisions are reviewable; remanded on timeliness issue.
- Statutory framework places DOC programming within its discretionary authority, while designation may be appealed de novo under 13 V.S.A. § 5411b(b) to the superior court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of designation appeal under Rule 75 | Rheaume did not receive notice until December 2009; | Notice given August 3, 2007; complaint filed November 13, 2009 timely under 30 days after notice. | Remanded to resolve whether notice occurred in December 2009, delaying start of limitations. |
| Reviewability of programming requirements under Rule 75 | Programming decisions should be reviewable as final DOC actions after designation. | Programming is within DOC discretion and not reviewable under Rule 75. | Programming requirements are not reviewable under Rule 75. |
| Reviewability of designation decisions under Rule 75 | Designation as high-risk is subject to Rule 75 de novo review. | Designation is quasi-judicial but limited review is available; timeliness issue governs full review. | Designation is reviewable under Rule 75; remanded on timeliness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. State Agency of Transp., 166 Vt. 509 (1997) (de novo review standard for agency dismissals; factual pleading treated in light most favorable)
- Richards v. Town of Norwich, 169 Vt. 44 (1999) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals; accept pleaded facts as true)
- Mason v. Thetford Sch. Bd., 142 Vt. 495 (1983) (look to substantive law to determine availability of Rule 75 review)
- Nash v. Coxon, 155 Vt. 336 (1990) (broad discretion to correctional authorities in determining treatment mode)
- In re Mattison, 120 Vt. 459 (1958) (writ of prohibition prohibits unlawful jurisdiction; context for administrative review)
- Grout v. Gates, 97 Vt. 434 (1924) (mandamus cannot create new duties or expand statutory duty)