State v. Felix

Supreme Court of Vermont

State v. Felix

569 A.2d 493, 153 Vt. 170, 1989 Vt. LEXIS 222

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedNovember 22, 1989

DocketNo. 88-084

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 569 A.2d 493 (State v. Felix) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Felix, 569 A.2d 493, 153 Vt. 170, 1989 Vt. LEXIS 222 (Vt. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Peck, J.

Defendant appeals from a district court judgment denying his motion for an extension of time for the filing of a notice of appeal from a conviction for driving while intoxicated. We affirm the denial of his motion.

Judgment was entered against defendant on November 17, 1987, on the charge of driving while intoxicated, 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(1). No appeal was filed, and on January 5, 1988, he received notice that his driver’s license had been suspended because of the conviction. He filed a motion on January 15, 1988, for an enlargement of time within which to file an appeal, [171]*171stating that his attorney was supposed to have filed an appeal but did not do so. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion, and the present appeal followed.

Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in disallowing the extension of time for filing his appeal, pursuant to V.R.A.P. 4. The motion did not establish a case for relief. The excusable neglect standard is a strict one, and defendant has not met it. See Reinsurance Co. of America, Inc. v. Administrate Asigurarilor de Stat, 808 F.2d 1249, 1251-52 (7th Cir. 1987) (decided under the substantially identical Fed. R. App. P. 4); Chipser v. Kohlmeyer & Co., 600 F.2d 1061, 1063 (5th Cir. 1979); cf. Miller v. Ladd, 140 Vt. 293, 297, 437 A.2d 1105, 1107 (1981) (rule should not be invoked to cover routine oversights; standard requires some reasonable basis for failure to comply in the time allowed). This case does not present the unique circumstances necessary to find excusable neglect;

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Peck, J.

Defendant appeals from a district court judgment denying his motion for an extension of time for the filing of a notice of appeal from a conviction for driving while intoxicated. We affirm the denial of his motion.

Judgment was entered against defendant on November 17, 1987, on the charge of driving while intoxicated, 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(1). No appeal was filed, and on January 5, 1988, he received notice that his driver’s license had been suspended because of the conviction. He filed a motion on January 15, 1988, for an enlargement of time within which to file an appeal, [171]*171stating that his attorney was supposed to have filed an appeal but did not do so. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion, and the present appeal followed.

Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in disallowing the extension of time for filing his appeal, pursuant to V.R.A.P. 4. The motion did not establish a case for relief. The excusable neglect standard is a strict one, and defendant has not met it. See Reinsurance Co. of America, Inc. v. Administrate Asigurarilor de Stat, 808 F.2d 1249, 1251-52 (7th Cir. 1987) (decided under the substantially identical Fed. R. App. P. 4); Chipser v. Kohlmeyer & Co., 600 F.2d 1061, 1063 (5th Cir. 1979); cf. Miller v. Ladd, 140 Vt. 293, 297, 437 A.2d 1105, 1107 (1981) (rule should not be invoked to cover routine oversights; standard requires some reasonable basis for failure to comply in the time allowed). This case does not present the unique circumstances necessary to find excusable neglect;

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

569 A.2d 493, 153 Vt. 170, 1989 Vt. LEXIS 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-felix-vt-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack