State v. Juan Villar, 180 A.3d 588

Defendant (Juan Villar) was convicted by jury of DUI under 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(2) and sentenced; he appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court in November 2015.
The appeal proceeded slowly with multiple extensions and two stipulated remands to the trial court to consider plea/dismissal options.
The parties agreed to dismissal without prejudice under V.R.Cr.P. 48(a); the trial court denied the State’s notice of dismissal in March 2017 and denied reconsideration in April 2017.
The trial court reasoned Rule 48(a) did not authorize dismissal after the prosecution had ended (it viewed “prosecution” as limited to pre-appellate proceedings).
The parties agreed on appeal that the controlling question was whether Rule 48(a) allows the State to dismiss a case post-conviction while a direct appeal is pending; the defendant consented to dismissal.
The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the rule de novo and held the trial court erred: Rule 48(a) applies through appellate proceedings and, with defendant’s consent, the court cannot deny dismissal based on timing alone; conviction vacated and charges dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether V.R.Cr.P. 48(a) authorizes the State to dismiss an indictment/information after conviction while a direct appeal is pending	State: Rule 48(a) permits dismissal during the ongoing "prosecution," which continues through appeals; with defendant’s consent dismissal is proper	Villar: Trial court rejected State’s dismissal but both parties on appeal agreed dismissal was permissible; defendant consented	Court: V.R.Cr.P. 48(a) covers the prosecution through exhaustion of appeals; where defendant consents, court may not deny dismissal based solely on post-conviction timing; conviction vacated and charges dismissed

Korematsu v. United States, 584 F. Supp. 1406 (N.D. Cal. 1984) (interpreting Rule 48(a) to include appellate exhaustion and noting prosecutor retains control until appeals are exhausted)
Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1977) (per curiam) (approving dismissal under Rule 48(a) after trial completion)
Watts v. United States, 422 U.S. 1032 (U.S. 1975) (approving post-conviction Rule 48(a) dismissal after appellate affirmation)
United States v. Hamm, 638 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1981) (discussing Rule 48(a) standard applies regardless of prosecution stage)
United States v. Hamm, 659 F.2d 624 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (court may deny dismissal only when prosecutor is motivated by considerations clearly contrary to public interest)
United States v. Gonzalez, 58 F.3d 459 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing prosecutors may obtain Rule 48(a) dismissal post-conviction based on justice considerations)
State v. Dopp, 127 Vt. 573 (Vt. 1969) (describing common-law nolle prosequi and historical prosecutorial discretion)