State v. Tanner

Supreme Court of Vermont

State v. Tanner

532 A.2d 584, 148 Vt. 384, 1987 Vt. LEXIS 497

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedAugust 14, 1987

DocketNo. 86-059

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 532 A.2d 584 (State v. Tanner) 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. Tanner, 532 A.2d 584, 148 Vt. 384, 1987 Vt. LEXIS 497 (Vt. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals a denial of the second of two motions to withdraw a guilty plea to a charge of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(1). The motions came after the defendant was sentenced to probation after a full and complete V.R.Cr.P. 11 examination at which defendant, who was represented by counsel, personally assured the court of his understanding as to the rights being waived and the voluntariness of his plea. No plea agreement was involved, and the defendant was advised by the court of the probable sentence before the entry of his plea.

Since the motion was made after sentence, withdrawal is permitted only to correct manifest injustice. See V.R.Cr.P. 32(d). Both motions were denied by different judges without hearings. A hearing is required if the motion raises issues that objectively address the manifest injustice standard. See In re Stevens, 144 Vt. 250, 255-56, 478 A.2d 212, 215 (1984). The defendant, in this case, did not meet this preliminary requirement.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals a denial of the second of two motions to withdraw a guilty plea to a charge of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(1). The motions came after the defendant was sentenced to probation after a full and complete V.R.Cr.P. 11 examination at which defendant, who was represented by counsel, personally assured the court of his understanding as to the rights being waived and the voluntariness of his plea. No plea agreement was involved, and the defendant was advised by the court of the probable sentence before the entry of his plea.

Since the motion was made after sentence, withdrawal is permitted only to correct manifest injustice. See V.R.Cr.P. 32(d). Both motions were denied by different judges without hearings. A hearing is required if the motion raises issues that objectively address the manifest injustice standard. See In re Stevens, 144 Vt. 250, 255-56, 478 A.2d 212, 215 (1984). The defendant, in this case, did not meet this preliminary requirement.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

532 A.2d 584, 148 Vt. 384, 1987 Vt. LEXIS 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tanner-vt-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack