PER
CURIAM. Defendants move to reconsider this Court’s dismissal of their
interlocutory appeals because defendants had not demonstrated why they could
not seek review by entering a conditional guilty plea.
In January 2019, this Court
dismissed the interlocutory appeals quoting State v. Lyford, 2016 VT 118, ¶ 2, 203 Vt. 648, 160 A.3d 317 (mem.), for the
proposition that generally interlocutory appeals of motions to suppress in
criminal cases are not granted “ ‘unless a conditional plea is not available or
practicable under the circumstances and the criteria in Rule 5(b) have been
met.’ ”
Defendants
argue that they should not be required to enter a conditional guilty plea
instead of seeking interlocutory review. We agree and conclude that a defendant
is not required to demonstrate that a conditional guilty plea is not
practicable or available before seeking interlocutory review. A defendant in a
criminal action may seek interlocutory review if the requirements of Vermont
Rule of Appellate Procedure 5 are met.
In
1971 the Legislature amended § 2386 into separate subdivisions relating to
civil and criminal cases. Subdivision (a) regarding civil actions provided that
appeals before final judgment for questions of law “may be taken in such manner
and under such conditions as the supreme court may by rule provide.” 1971, No.
185, § 57. Subdivision (b) maintained the existing language of the statute,
providing that the trial court in its discretion and before final judgment may
permit an appeal to be taken by the respondent or the state in a criminal
cause.
Following
the statutory amendment and the promulgation of Appellate Rule 5, three main
themes have been consistent in this Court’s decisions regarding interlocutory
appeals by defendants in criminal cases. First, review of denials of motions to
suppress in criminal cases are interlocutory and not reviewed as of right until
after final judgment. Second, denials of motions to suppress usually do not
meet the criteria in Appellate Rule 5.
Id. Third, this Court has the authority to dismiss interlocutory appeals, even
when certified by the trial court.
In
1989, Rule 11 of the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure was amended to
authorize conditional guilty pleas. See V.R.Cr.P. 11(a)(2). The conditional
guilty plea was designed to allow defendants who were not eligible to appeal
through interlocutory means to get appellate review of pretrial motions without
having to go through an entire trial. The Court continued to both grant and
deny interlocutory appeals filed by defendants in criminal actions without
reference to the availability of a conditional guilty plea.
Upon
consideration, we overrule Lyford to
the extent that it holds that a defendant is precluded from seeking
interlocutory appeal through Appellate Rule 5 if a conditional guilty plea is
available.
In
this case, because the criminal division did not explain the basis for granting
interlocutory appeal, we dismiss the interlocutory appeals without prejudice to
defendants refiling after the trial court issues a decision.
An
interlocutory appeal is appropriate where the order is a “controlling question
of law about which there exists substantial ground for difference of opinion”
and “an immediate appeal may materially advance the termination of the
litigation.” V.R.A.P. 5(b)(1)(A), (B). Regardless of whether the trial court has
determined that a case is appropriate for interlocutory appeal, this Court
retains authority to dismiss an appeal if the trial court abused its discretion
in allowing it.
We
review the trial court’s decision to grant interlocutory appeal for an abuse of
discretion.. Here, we do not have an explanation of the reasons that the trial
court exercised its discretion. Although the court has discretion to allow an
interlocutory appeal, it must provide at least some basis for this Court to
determine how that discretion was exercised. Therefore, we dismiss the appeals
to allow the trial court to issue a new decision providing the grounds for its
decision on the motion for interlocutory appeal.
Upon reconsideration, the interlocutory appeals
are dismissed without prejudice to defendants refiling after the trial court
issues a decision.
SCOVT NOTE.ON OVERRULING RECENT PRECEDENT
The Court has recognized the importance of the doctrine of stare decisis, and has noted that, although the Court is not "slavish adherents" to this doctrine, it does not "lightly overturn recent precedent," especially where the precedent could be changed easily by legislation at any time. O'Connor v. City of Rutland, 172 Vt. 570, 570, 772 A.2d 551, 552 (2001) (mem.)
State v. Haynes overrules a three-year-old case. But this is not a record. See Whippie v. O'Connor, 2011 VT 97 (mem.)(cotenant who excludes his cotenants from possession and enjoyment of the jointly owned property is entitled to contribution for necessary maintenance costs such as mortgage, taxes and insurance during the period of ouster, overruling Massey v. Hrostek, 2009 VT 70, as based on an incorrect statement of prior law); Town of Lyndon v. Burnett's Contracting Co., 138 Vt. 102, (1980) (order being appealed need not be specified in the notice of appeal, overruling In re Town of St. Johnsbury Town School District, 137 Vt. 557 (1979) as overlooking V.R.A.P 3(a) (an appeal from a judgment preserves all claims of error in the record)).
No comments:
Post a Comment