State v. Thompson, 30 A.3d 671

Background

Defendant, a Massachusetts resident, was charged in Vermont with lewd or lascivious conduct with a child based on a 2007 incident.
In 2009, he pled no contest to a misdemeanor amended charge under a plea agreement that allowed residency in Massachusetts during probation, subject to probation approval.
The sentence imposed (one-to-twelve months, all suspended) was paired with probation and sex-offender conditions, including a residence in Massachusetts.
Ten days after sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his plea or strike a probation condition hindering his ability to live at home; the court struck the sentence and continued for 30 days to permit alternative housing in Massachusetts, contingent on DOC approval.
Massachusetts officials later refused to approve housing, leaving defendant effectively unable to reside at home; efforts to obtain relief continued through September 2009.
In November 2009, the State opposed the motion on merits but did not raise jurisdictional objections; the district court dismissed the motion on jurisdictional grounds, concluding defendant was in custody under sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State can belatedly challenge the July 2 order on lack of jurisdiction.	State asserts lack of subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the motion.	Defendant contends the court had jurisdiction to hear the motion as a form of sentence reconsideration.	State's belated challenge is insufficient; remand to address merits.
Whether the July 2 order was a valid exercise of sentence modification/reconsideration.	Majority: the order was a permissible form of relief within §7042(a) and Rule 35(b).	Dissent contends the court improperly vacated the sentence and could not do so under these avenues.	The July 2 order was within the court's discretion; the merits must be considered on remand.
Whether the district court’s later dismissal was proper given custody status and Rule 32(d).	State argues the court lacked jurisdiction due to defendant being in custody; but the order should be treated as a valid relief.	Defendant argues jurisdiction was lacking because custody persisted, barring withdrawal motion.	Jurisdiction was not properly defeated; remand for merits review.
What standard applies to evaluating a post-sentencing motion to withdraw a plea in this unusual posture (manifest injustice vs fair and just reason).	Standard should be determined on remand given the unusual posture.	Standard may be limited to fair and just reason or manifest injustice depending on timing and post-sentencing context.	District court should decide which standard applies in the first instance.

Key Cases Cited

In re B.C., 169 Vt. 1 (1999) (limits collateral attacks on judgments by recognizing core subject matter jurisdiction plus ancillary limits)
State v. Hance, 157 Vt. 222 (1991) (plea-based sentences may be modified under Rule 35 but not always; limited usefulness when plea agreement involved)
State v. Sodaro, 2005 VT 67 (2005) (sentence reconsideration is not for post-incarceration matters)
State v. Wargo, 168 Vt. 231 (1998) (proper avenue for post-sentencing relief for in-custody defendants is PCR)
State v. Brooks, 170 Vt. 597 (2000) (lack of jurisdiction to entertain motion when in custody; prohibition on vacating sentence via improper channels)
Cooley v. State, 135 Vt. 409 (1977) (limitations on district court jurisdiction to entertain post-conviction motions to avoid conflicts with PCR statute)