State v. Mitchell Bowen, 195 A.3d 361

Defendant was charged in 2013 with sexual assault of a minor (13-year-old) and entered into a plea agreement admitting guilt; State agreed to a capped sentence.
Defendant signed plea paperwork acknowledging he had read the affidavit of probable cause and agreed there was a factual basis for his plea.
At the change-of-plea hearing the court recited the elements and penalties and asked whether the affidavit provided facts to establish the elements; defendant answered yes and said he was pleading guilty because he was guilty.
The trial court accepted the plea and later sentenced defendant to two-to-eight years after a contested hearing. Defendant appealed the sufficiency of the plea colloquy.
This appeal was decided after In re Bridger, which held that Rule 11(f) requires a defendant’s admission of the underlying facts (not merely assent to affidavits) and rejected a "substantial compliance" standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea colloquy satisfied V.R.Cr.P. 11(f)’s requirement to establish a factual basis for the plea	State acknowledged colloquy was insufficient under Bridger but argued no plain error because trial court followed then-applicable law	Bowen argued the court failed to elicit the facts or an admission of them, so Rule 11(f) was not satisfied	Court held the colloquy did not satisfy Rule 11(f): there was no recitation of underlying facts nor an admission by defendant
Standard of review for Rule 11(f) challenges on direct appeal	State urged that Bridger (a PCR case) should not alter direct-appeal plain-error review	Bowen urged Bridger requires same rigorous review for direct appeals	Court held the Rule 11(f) standard is the same on direct appeal and in PCR; rejected substantial-compliance/plain-error distinction
Whether Bridger should be applied retroactively to this direct appeal	State argued no plain error because law was unsettled at plea time	Bowen argued Bridger controls because his appeal was pending when Bridger issued	Court applied Bridger to this case and found the plea colloquy insufficient
Remedy for deficient Rule 11(f) colloquy	State sought to avoid reversal based on timing of law	Bowen sought reversal and remand for further proceedings	Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Rule 11(f)

In re Bridger, 176 A.3d 489 (Vt. 2017) (court must elicit defendant’s admission to underlying facts; rejects substantial-compliance standard)
State v. Cleary, 824 A.2d 509 (Vt. 2003) (previously applied plain-error/substantial-compliance approach to Rule 11(f))
In re Miller, 975 A.2d 1226 (Vt. 2009) (explains that lack of factual-basis inquiry affects voluntariness of plea)
In re Combs, 27 A.3d 318 (Vt. 2011) (standard for proving fundamental error in PCR proceedings)
State v. Shattuck, 450 A.2d 1122 (Vt. 1982) (principle that changes in law apply to cases on direct review)