State v. LaPine

Supreme Court of Vermont

State v. LaPine

527 A.2d 1150, 148 Vt. 14, 1987 Vt. LEXIS 439

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedMarch 6, 1987

Docket86-009

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 527 A.2d 1150 (State v. LaPine) 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. LaPine, 527 A.2d 1150, 148 Vt. 14, 1987 Vt. LEXIS 439 (Vt. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Two years after sentencing for a conviction for sexual assault defendant petitioned for reconsideration of sentence under 13 V.S.A. § 7042, and his petition was denied. We affirm.

Central to defendant’s case is his assertion of changed circumstances, notably his completion of the sexual offender program, visits to a psychiatrist, and participation in work release. The State responds that defendant’s petition in effect seeks to use 13 V.S.A. § 7042 as an alternative to a parole hearing, and that seems to be so. The purpose of reconsideration under § 7042 “is to permit the trial judge to reconsider the sentencing decision absent the heat of trial pressures and in calm reflection . . . .” *15 State v. Therrien, 140 Vt. 625, 627, 442 A.2d 1299, 1301 (1982). Implicit in Therrien and the statute itself is the assumption that under consideration will be the circumstances and factors present at the time of the original sentencing, rather than defendant’s conduct and behavior since sentencing. Sentence reconsideration and the parole process are two entirely different functions, and the trial court was correct to maintain the distinction.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Two years after sentencing for a conviction for sexual assault defendant petitioned for reconsideration of sentence under 13 V.S.A. § 7042, and his petition was denied. We affirm.

Central to defendant’s case is his assertion of changed circumstances, notably his completion of the sexual offender program, visits to a psychiatrist, and participation in work release. The State responds that defendant’s petition in effect seeks to use 13 V.S.A. § 7042 as an alternative to a parole hearing, and that seems to be so. The purpose of reconsideration under § 7042 “is to permit the trial judge to reconsider the sentencing decision absent the heat of trial pressures and in calm reflection . . . .” *15 State v. Therrien, 140 Vt. 625, 627, 442 A.2d 1299, 1301 (1982). Implicit in Therrien and the statute itself is the assumption that under consideration will be the circumstances and factors present at the time of the original sentencing, rather than defendant’s conduct and behavior since sentencing. Sentence reconsideration and the parole process are two entirely different functions, and the trial court was correct to maintain the distinction.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

527 A.2d 1150, 148 Vt. 14, 1987 Vt. LEXIS 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lapine-vt-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack