260 A.3d 368
Vt.2021Background
- Defendant Dean Stearns pleaded guilty in Dec. 2018 to five counts of voyeurism and two counts of promoting a recording of sexual conduct; sentenced Jan. 23, 2020 to an aggregate 10–15 years, with five years to serve.
- Stearns filed a notice of appeal (Feb. 20, 2020) but later moved to dismiss that appeal; the Vermont Supreme Court entered an order granting the motion on Aug. 28, 2020.
- Stearns filed a motion for sentence reconsideration in the superior court on Nov. 26, 2020—ninety days after the Supreme Court’s dismissal order.
- Superior court dismissed the motion as untimely, holding that § 7042(a) and V.R.Cr.P. 35(b) only permit a motion within 90 days of a sentence or of a Supreme Court affirmance on the merits, not an appeal-dismissal order.
- The Vermont Supreme Court reversed: it held that an entry order dismissing an appeal that leaves a conviction in place qualifies as an "order . . . of the Supreme Court upholding a judgment of conviction," so the 90-day filing window ran from that order; remanded for merits review.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Stearns' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of motion for sentence reconsideration | Motion untimely because 90 days runs from imposition of sentence; dismissal order does not qualify as an "upholding" order | 90-day period runs from Supreme Court order dismissing appeal because it left the conviction intact | Court: dismissal order qualifies; motion was filed within 90 days of that order — reversal and remand |
| Meaning of "any order or judgment . . . upholding a judgment of conviction" (§ 7042/Rule 35) | "Upholding" means affirmance on the merits; statute should not be read to include mere dismissal | "Any order" plus "upholding" are capacious; maintaining a conviction by dismissal falls within the language | Court: plain language supports broad reading; "any order" is purposeful and "upholding" includes maintaining a conviction |
| Policy/practical consequences of narrow reading | (Implicit) statutory text controls | Narrow reading produces unfair, illogical results—defendants who dismiss appeals would lose reconsideration remedy; could force futile appeals | Court: equitable purpose of § 7042/Rule 35 and practical fairness favor broad interpretation to avoid absurd outcomes |
| Relationship to former Federal Rule 35 language | Omission of explicit "dismissal of the appeal" in Vermont rule signals intent to exclude dismissals | Vermont statute was meant to capture same outcomes as federal rule but in phrasing suited to state court structure | Court: Vermont language mirrors federal rule’s effect; broader wording was intentional and includes appeal dismissals |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Charette, 189 A.3d 67 (discussing nondeferential review of statutory interpretation in criminal appeals)
- State v. Desjardins, 479 A.2d 160 (90-day period applies to initiation/filing of motion under Rule 35/§ 7042)
- Menichino v. United States, 542 F.2d 235 (discussing former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 language and its options including dismissal)
- State v. Therrien, 442 A.2d 1299 (describing Rule 35’s equitable purpose to permit post-sentencing reconsideration)
- State v. Lumumba, 104 A.3d 627 (overview of Vermont’s situational sentencing scheme and multiple-factor sentencing analysis)
- In re Miller, 975 A.2d 1226 (statutory construction principle that statutory language should not be rendered superfluous)