State v. Aubuchon
2014 Vt. 12
Vt.2014Background
- Defendant Aubuchon was convicted on multiple charges stemming from separate docket numbers, with an Orange larceny-from-the-person conviction giving him time served credit and furlough.
- While on furlough for the initial sentence, he was charged with new offenses (assault/robbery, escape) and additional larcenies, remaining jailed on bail for those charges.
- On January 10, 2013, Aubuchon pled guilty to the four new charges and received various consecutive and concurrent sentences across the dockets.
- DOC recalculated his aggregate sentence as 2-38 years and awarded 236 days credit against the aggregate maximum.
- Aubuchon grievanceed the DOC calculation, moved under Rule 35 to correct the aggregate minimum/maximum and to certify 604 days of jail time between arraignment and sentencing on the new charges.
- The superior court partially granted credit for concurrent sentences but denied additional credit toward the aggregate minimum, and Aubuchon appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Act 4 applies to Aubuchon’s case and retroactively affects credit. | Aubuchon argues Act 4 clarifies prior law and applies retroactively. | The State contends Act 4 amended law and should not apply retroactively. | Act 4 did not apply retroactively; prior law governs. |
| How credit for time served is calculated when second sentence is consecutive to an initial sentence. | Aubuchon relies on Blondin to credit time against the second sentence. | State contends credits are limited per consecutive sentencing rules. | Credit follows Blondin—no double credit when second sentence is consecutive. |
| Whether the aggregate minimum/maximum were properly computed under 13 V.S.A. § 7031/7032. | Aubuchon seeks a larger aggregate minimum/maximum based on pre-sentencing custody. | Rule 35 calculation approved by court was correct under prior law. | Aggregate calculation supported; no additional credit toward the minimum. |
| Whether Aubuchon was entitled to additional credit due to furlough not revoked. | Credit should count toward the second sentence if furlough remained in effect. | Credit depends on whether sentences are concurrent or consecutive, not furlough status. | Blondin rule controls; no extra credit when second sentence is consecutive. |
| Whether the procedural posture (Rule 35 vs Rule 75) affected the relief sought. | Rule 35 was the proper vehicle for legal credit determinations. | Any retroactivity issue could be considered; Rule 75 is not required here. | Procedural path deemed appropriate; merits addressed on Rule 35 merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blondin, 164 Vt. 55 (1995) (credit for time served tied to whether sentences are concurrent or consecutive)
- State v. LeClair, 2013 VT 113 (2013) (interpretation of §7031(b) and AF time credit when second sentence is concurrent)
- State v. Sommer, 190 Vt. 236, 27 A.3d 1059 (2011) (credit for time served decisions; Rule 35 outcomes)
- State v. Kenvin, 2011 VT 123 (2011) (clarification vs amendment; retroactivity considerations)
- In re D.K., 2012 VT 23 (2012) (impact of legislative labeling on statute interpretation)
- McClung v. Employment Development Dept., 99 P.3d 1015 (Cal. 2004) (limits on retroactive correction of judicial interpretations)
- Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298 (1994) (retroactivity policy in legislative responses to judicial decisions)
- State v. Maples, 286 P.3d 386 (wash. Ct. App. 2012) (retroactivity/interpretation themes in statute amendments)