|
In re Laws (2005-320)
2007 VT 54
[Filed 22-Jun-2007]
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
to press.
2007 VT 54
No. 2005-320
In re Richard Laws Supreme Court
On Appeal from
Addison Superior Court
September Term, 2006
Christina C. Reiss, J.
Allison N. Fulcher of Martin & Associates, Barre, and Richard Laws, Pro Se,
Beattyville, Kentucky, for Petitioner-Appellant.
William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, John Treadwell, Assistant Attorney
General, Montpelier, and John T. Quinn, Addison County State's Attorney,
Middlebury, for Respondent-Appellee.
PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.
1. BURGESS, J. Petitioner appeals an order of the superior
court granting summary judgment in favor of the State on his request for
post-conviction relief (PCR). The superior court denied relief, concluding
that under 13 V.S.A. 7131 it did not have subject matter jurisdiction.
The court also concluded, in the alternative, that all of petitioner's
claims were barred because he failed to raise them in a prior PCR. We hold
that the superior court erred in dismissing the PCR under 7131 because
the language the court relied on affects venue only and does not limit a
court's subject matter jurisdiction over a PCR. We further hold that
petitioner may go forward with his claims, even though he did not raise
them in his first PCR, to the extent he can demonstrate (1) cause for not
raising the issues previously and (2) prejudice if the issues are not
heard. Claims that do not meet this standard, as well as those claims
actually raised and decided on the merits in connection with petitioner's
first PCR, are properly barred from relitigation. Accordingly, we reverse
the superior court's decision and remand the matter for further proceedings
consistent with the standard articulated in this opinion.
2. We summarized the facts underlying petitioner's criminal
convictions in our decision affirming denial of his first PCR:
The crimes occurred in the late evening of June 19, 1992. While
driving from Mad Mountain Tavern in Waitsfield that evening, the
victim's tires went flat; the evidence suggested that defendant
himself had punctured her tires. Defendant pulled up to her
stopped vehicle and offered her a ride, which the victim accepted.
Rather than bring her home, however, defendant drove the victim to
the Granville Gulf area where he raped her. After raping her,
defendant drove the victim to a more remote location and beat her
severely with a blunt instrument. The victim left behind a large
deposit of blood with head hair that the police later discovered
during their investigation. The victim's injuries were life
threatening and included a fractured skull.
In re Laws, 2004-118, slip op. at 1 (Vt. Sept. 29, 2004) (unreported mem.).
Based on these facts, petitioner was charged with kidnapping, aggravated
sexual assault, and aggravated assault.
3. There was apparently some initial uncertainty as to whether
the crime should be prosecuted in Addison or Washington County. The
charges were originally filed in Washington County district court, but
petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that venue was improper
because the offenses had not taken place in that county. See 13 V.S.A.
4601 (providing that criminal charges be tried in county where offense was
committed). The State conceded the issue, dismissed the charges filed in
Washington County, and then filed charges in Addison County. Despite the
change in venue, however, the Addison County State's Attorney appointed a
Washington County State's Attorney to prosecute the matter. Ultimately,
petitioner entered into a plea agreement that was signed by petitioner, his
attorney, and the Washington County State's Attorney (acting on behalf of
Addison County). The plea agreement was entered in Washington County
district court, and it was the Washington County district court that
sentenced petitioner to twenty to thirty-five years to serve. Petitioner
did not pursue a direct appeal from his conviction or sentence.
4. Petitioner filed his first PCR (FN1) in Washington Superior
Court in July 2000, asserting that his guilty plea violated double
jeopardy. The superior court entered judgment in favor of the State,
concluding that petitioner's voluntary plea waived any double jeopardy
claim. This Court affirmed on appeal. See In re Laws, No. 2004-118, slip
op. at 1-2 (Vt. Sept. 29, 2004) (unreported mem.).
5. Petitioner then filed a second PCR in Addison Superior Court
in October 2004, arguing: (1) the plea agreement violated double jeopardy;
(2) the Washington County district court lacked jurisdiction to accept the
plea agreement; (3) the Washington County State's Attorney lacked the
authority to sign the plea agreement; (4) the plea colloquy did not meet
the requirements of Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f); and (5)
petitioner's attorney provided ineffective assistance. The State moved for
summary judgment on the merits of these claims, but also argued that the
superior court did not need to decide the PCR on the merits because it was
a second or successive petition barred by 13 V.S.A. 7134. The superior
court entered judgment for the State, concluding that it did not have
jurisdiction over the PCR under 13 V.S.A. 7131, and, alternatively, that
it was not obligated to hear the PCR because it was a second or successive
petition. Petitioner appealed.
I.
6. In his pro se appellate brief, petitioner reiterates his
argument on the merits of his claim that the Washington County district
court lacked jurisdiction to accept his plea in the underlying criminal
proceeding. He also asserts in passing that the plea colloquy did not
comply with Rule 11(f). Petitioner does not address the superior court's
conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction over the PCR, or the alternative
ground that the claims failed under the bar against second or successive
PCRs. The State, in turn, responds to petitioner's merits-based argument,
only briefly reiterating the 7134 argument.
7. Dismissing the PCR, the superior court did not engage the
merits of petitioner's claims. Rather, the court concluded that it lacked
jurisdiction to consider the PCR, relying on the language of 13 V.S.A.
7131, which provides:
A prisoner who is in custody under sentence of a court and claims
the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was
imposed in violation of the constitution or laws of the United
States, or of the state of Vermont, or that the court was without
jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or that the sentence was in
excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject
to collateral attack, may at any time move the superior court of
the county where the sentence was imposed to vacate, set aside or
correct the sentence.
(Emphasis added.) While it is true that the post-conviction-relief statute
requires that a defendant seek relief in "the superior court of the county
where the sentence was imposed," id., we have previously explained that
this provision goes to venue and not subject matter jurisdiction:
Section 7131 . . . does not concern subject-matter jurisdiction of
the court in which the PCR petition is heard. The statute
indicating the county where the PCR should be brought was enacted
to simplify the often cumbersome procedures associated with habeas
corpus. Requiring the superior court of the county of sentencing
to hear the PCR petition was designed to provide a more convenient
forum for obtaining relevant records and witnesses. As a venue
provision, the statute does not purport to limit subject-matter
jurisdiction.
In re Hanson, 160 Vt. 111, 113, 623 A.2d 466, 467 (1993) (citations and
quotations omitted). Accordingly, while a party may seek to transfer venue
under the authority of the statute, the superior court erred in concluding
that it was without jurisdiction to hear defendant's petition.
II.
8. The superior court provided an alternative basis for granting
summary judgment to the State, noting that under 13 V.S.A. 7134 the court
was "not required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar
relief on behalf of the same prisoner." The court determined, based on
State v. Provencher, that the bar against second or successive petitions
applied to "questions which the applicant knew of, but deliberately, or
without adequate excuse, failed to raise either in the proceeding which led
to his conviction or in prior post-conviction proceedings." 128 Vt. 586,
591-92, 270 A.2d 147, 150 (1970) (Holden, J., concurring, with all members
of the Court in accord). The superior court did not, however, make any
findings to support its conclusion that petitioner "deliberately, or
without adequate excuse" abandoned his claims, and so a remand for further
findings is required.
9. We take this opportunity to elaborate on the standard the
superior court should apply on remand. (FN2) Some background on
post-conviction relief and the bar against second or successive petitions
will properly frame the issues presented to us in this appeal. The purpose
of post-conviction relief under 13 V.S.A. 7131 is to provide prisoners
with an opportunity to challenge the legality of their confinement, and
thus "to guard against illegal restraints on liberty." In re Stewart, 140
Vt. 351, 359, 438 A.2d 1106, 1109 (1981). One fundamental aspect of
post-conviction relief is that a challenge to confinement may be brought
"at any time." 13 V.S.A. 7131. Nonetheless, in other respects,
"[p]ost-conviction relief is a limited remedy." In re Grega, 2003 VT 77,
6, 175 Vt. 631, 833 A.2d 872 (mem.). Post-conviction-relief proceedings
are not a vehicle for addressing the petitioner's guilt or innocence, nor
are they a substitute for direct appeal of a conviction or sentence.
Stewart, 140 Vt. at 360, 438 A.2d at 1110. Rather, claims for PCR are
limited to collateral attacks on the petitioner's conviction. For example,
a PCR may raise ineffective assistance of counsel, a constitutional
challenge to the statute under which the petitioner was convicted or
sentenced, or the adequacy of a Rule 11 plea colloquy. In forwarding such
arguments, "the petitioner has the substantial burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that fundamental errors rendered his
conviction defective." Grega, 2003 VT 77, 6 (citation and quotation
omitted).
10. There are also procedural limitations on the issues that may
be raised in a PCR. A PCR may not raise an issue that was litigated in the
criminal trial but deliberately bypassed on direct appeal. Stewart, 140
Vt. at 361, 438 A.2d at 1110 (holding that doctrine of laches is not
applicable to PCR proceedings but further holding that an issue is barred
from consideration in PCR if issue was deliberately bypassed on direct
appeal). (FN3) Further, 7134 provides that a court is "not required to
entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the
same prisoner."
11. There have been but a few occasions to consider the scope of
the 7134 limitation. See In re Reuschel, 141 Vt. 200, 203, 446 A.2d 343,
344 (1982) (Underwood, J., concurring) (second PCR properly dismissed where
it was a "thinly disguised rehash of the first"); In re Mayer, 131 Vt. 248,
250-51, 303 A.2d 803, 804 (1973) (second PCR could have been denied under
7134 where petitioner "had every opportunity to challenge his . . .
conviction through his appeal, his various motions for post-conviction
relief and his motions to the Federal Court"); Garceau v. State, 126 Vt.
516, 520, 236 A.2d 661, 664 (1967) (dismissal under 7134 justified where
merits of claims had been "thoroughly presented and litigated with the
assistance of . . . counsel in a full evidentiary hearing"). In addition,
in a succinct opinion, we cited United States Supreme Court precedent -
rather than our 7134 - for the proposition that
a court is not required to entertain a second or successive motion
for post-conviction relief if: the same ground was determined
adversely to the petitioner in an earlier petition, the prior
determination was on the merits, and the ends of justice would not
be served by reaching the merits of the subsequent application.
In re Currier, 147 Vt. 645, 645, 513 A.2d 41, 41 (1986) (mem.) (citing
Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15 (1963)). From these cases, it is
clear that 7134 bars relitigation of claims actually raised and decided
on the merits in an earlier PCR. What is less clear, however, is the
extent to which 7134 bars a second PCR based on different grounds, and
whether it matters that the petitioner could have raised those grounds in
the earlier PCR, but failed to do so.
12. This is the question left unresolved in Provencher when the
Court faced a situation similar to that presented here. The petitioner in
Provencher had entered a guilty plea from which he did not pursue a direct
appeal, and he had also filed an earlier PCR which was denied on the
merits. 128 Vt. at 586, 270 A.2d at 148. We noted that 7134 barred any
"second or successive [PCR] motion for similar relief," and that under
those terms, petitioner's second PCR was precluded because it sought
"similar relief" - that is, like the first PCR, the second PCR sought to
have the petitioner's conviction set aside and his sentence vacated. Id.
at 587-88, 270 A.2d at 148. Nonetheless, without extensive explanation, we
considered the merits of petitioner's argument because it presented
different grounds for relief than claimed in his first PCR, but we
ultimately ruled that "respondent has failed to show in his second petition
for relief from confinement anything that he could not have raised in his
first petition for such relief." Id. at 590. In a concurring opinion
joined by the majority, Justice Holden observed in dicta that 7134
does not mean that the first application bars, with total
finality, all grounds that otherwise might justify post-conviction
relief. Only those factual or legal contentions actually
adjudicated or questions which the applicant knew of, but
deliberately, or without adequate excuse, failed to raise either
in the proceeding which led to his conviction or in prior
post-conviction proceedings are foreclosed.
Id. at 591-92, 270 A.2d at 150.
13. Justice Holden based his statement on the United States
Supreme Court's decision in Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 (1963).
In that case, the Court interpreted 28 U.S.C. 2255 - the federal
counterpart to Vermont's 7134 - which provided that a court "shall not be
required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on
behalf of the same prisoner." (FN4) Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62
Stat. 967; see Provencher, 128 Vt. at 590, 270 A.2d at 150 (Holden, J.,
concurring) ("The federal post-conviction statute contains substantially
the same language used in [Vermont's] section 7134."). The question before
the Sanders Court was the extent to which this provision limited a
prisoner's ability to have a second or successive petition heard on the
merits. At the outset, the Court concluded that the language of the
provision could not be interpreted literally - that is, as barring all
efforts to obtain "similar relief" - because this would categorically bar
all subsequent petitions regardless of the grounds on which they were
advanced. Sanders, 373 U.S. at 13. This, in turn, could
unconstitutionally deprive a prisoner of the remedy of habeas corpus. Id.
at 13-14.
14. The Sanders Court noted that prisoners were historically
afforded broad access to successive petitions. Ordinarily, the doctrine of
res judicata precludes a litigant from raising a claim that was or could
have been fully litigated in a prior judicial proceeding. See In re St.
Mary's Church Cell Tower, 2006 VT 103, 3, __ Vt. __, 910 A.2d 925 (mem.).
Res judicata, however, has traditionally not been applied to habeas corpus
relief in part because, at common law, there was no opportunity to appeal
the denial of a habeas corpus application, and therefore successive
petitions substituted for appellate review. Sanders, 373 U.S. at 7-8.
There was also a more fundamental reason for not applying the doctrine to
habeas corpus relief: namely, the nature of the writ as the last resort for
challenging the exercise of governmental power. Id. at 8 ("If government
is always to be accountable to the judiciary for a man's imprisonment,
access to the courts on habeas must not be . . . impeded [by operation of
res judicata]. The inapplicability of res judicata to habeas, then, is
inherent in the very role and function of the writ." (citation, quotation,
and alteration omitted)).
15. Absent any reasonable procedural limits, however, successive
motions on different grounds, previously known but not previously asserted,
could endlessly strain judicial resources to the point of abuse. The
Sanders Court examined its prior habeas corpus decisions that, while
failing to set forth a rule to be applied in other cases, nonetheless
"identified situations where denial without hearing is proper even though a
second or successive application states a claim for relief." Id. From
review of these cases, the Court concluded that "the judicial and statutory
evolution of the principles governing successive applications for federal
habeas corpus and motions under [the federal] 2255 has reached the point
at which the formulation of basic rules to guide the lower federal courts
is both feasible and desirable." Id. at 15.
16. The rules developed by the Court were as follows. First, the
Court defined the circumstances under which previously litigated claims
could be barred:
Controlling weight may be given to denial of a prior application
for federal habeas corpus or 2255 relief only if (1) the same
ground presented in the subsequent application was determined
adversely to the applicant on the prior application, (2) the prior
determination was on the merits, and (3) the ends of justice would
not be served by reaching the merits of the subsequent
application.
Id. (footnote omitted). Second, the Court identified the concept of "abuse
of the writ":
No matter how many prior applications for federal collateral
relief a prisoner has made, the principle elaborated [above]
cannot apply if a different ground is presented by the new
application. So too, it cannot apply if the same ground was
earlier presented but not adjudicated on the merits. In either
case, full consideration of the merits of the new application can
be avoided only if there has been an abuse of the writ or motion
remedy; and this the Government has the burden of pleading.
Id. at 17. The Court offered as an example a situation where "a prisoner
deliberately withholds one of two grounds for federal collateral relief at
the time of filing his first application, in the hope of being granted two
hearings rather than one." Id. at 18. While the right to habeas corpus
relief requires that prisoners have an adequate opportunity to challenge
the legality of their incarceration, "[n]othing in the traditions of habeas
corpus requires the federal courts to tolerate needless piecemeal
litigation, to entertain collateral proceedings whose only purpose is to
vex, harass, or delay." Id.
17. Beyond these statements, however, the Sanders Court declined
to elaborate a specific test for when a second or successive petition
should be considered an abuse of the writ. Both petitioner and the State
posit that the appropriate standard is set forth in McCleskey v. Zant, 499
U.S. 467 (1991). In McCleskey, the Court revisited the issue of "writ
abuse," recognized, but unresolved, by Sanders:
[m]uch confusion exists . . . on the standard for determining when
a petitioner abuses the writ. Although the standard is central to
the proper determination of many federal habeas corpus actions, we
have had little occasion to define it. Indeed, there is truth to
the observation that we have defined abuse of the wit in an
oblique way, through dicta and denials of certiorari petitions or
stay applications.
Id. at 477.
18. In McCleskey, the Court sought "to define the doctrine of
abuse of the writ with more precision." Id. at 489. While Sanders
provided the example of claims deliberately withheld by a petitioner,
McCleskey acknowledged that "[a]buse of the writ is not confined to
instances of deliberate abandonment [of a claim]." Id. Thus, McCleskey
held that "a petitioner can abuse the writ by raising a claim in a
subsequent petition that he could have raised in his first, regardless of
whether the failure to raise it earlier stemmed from a deliberate choice."
Id.
19. To identify exactly what conduct this standard would
encompass, the Court imported a standard from a different aspect of habeas
corpus litigation: the bar against federal courts considering claims that
were procedurally defaulted in state court - referred to as "inexcusable
neglect." The Court found this standard appropriate because the two
situations present the same reasons for disallowing the defaulted claim:
"[B]oth the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine and our procedural default
jurisprudence concentrate on a petitioner's acts to determine whether he
has a legitimate excuse for failing to raise a claim at the appropriate
time." Id. at 490.
20. The "inexcusable neglect" standard requires a petitioner to
show two elements: cause and prejudice. Id. at 493. "[T]he cause standard
requires the petitioner to show that some objective factor external to the
defense impeded counsel's efforts to raise the claim" in the earlier
proceeding. (FN5) Id. (citation and quotation omitted). Examples include
situations where a factual or legal basis for a claim was not available at
the time of the earlier proceeding, instances of official interference
(such as the state's failure to provide requested evidence), or ineffective
assistance of counsel. Id. at 493-94. After demonstrating cause for the
default, the petitioner must show that actual prejudice resulted. Id. at
494. To demonstrate actual prejudice, the petitioner must show "not merely
that the error[s] at his trial created a possibility of prejudice, but that
they worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his
entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions." United States v.
Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 170 (1982).
21. The McCleskey Court further clarified the burden of proof for
abuse of the writ, holding that when a petitioner files a second or
subsequent petition,
the government bears the burden of pleading abuse of the writ.
The government satisfies this burden if, with clarity and
particularity, it notes petitioner's prior writ history,
identifies the claims that appear for the first time, and alleges
that petitioner has abused the writ. The burden to disprove abuse
then becomes petitioner's. . . . The petitioner's opportunity to
meet the burden of cause and prejudice will not include an
evidentiary hearing if the district court determines as a matter
of law that petitioner cannot satisfy the standard.
McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 494.
22. We agree with the parties that is this is the proper test and
adopt it today. The critical elements are as follows. First, the
government has the burden of pleading abuse of the writ with the level of
specificity described in McCleskey. Second, the burden then shifts to the
petitioner to show cause and actual prejudice. Third, in dismissing a PCR
on this basis, the superior court must make findings on the issues of cause
and actual prejudice. Because the record in the instant case was not
developed in light of this standard, we reverse the dismissal of
petitioner's PCR and remand the matter so that the State may affirmatively
plead abuse of the writ. Petitioner may then respond to the specific
allegations, and the superior court can make findings as may be supported
by the pleadings and evidence. See, e.g., Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,
455 (9th Cir. 1998) (whether cause and prejudice exist for purposes of
pre-AEDPA abuse-of-the-writ standard ordinarily involves fact issues).
(FN6)
23. Two additional matters raised here warrant comment prior to
remand, for the sake of judicial efficiency. First, to the extent that
petitioner's double jeopardy claim is premised on the same ground as the
double jeopardy claim presented in his prior PCR, it can be properly
dismissed under 7134. Second, if the superior court reaches the merits
of petitioner's argument that the Washington County district court lacked
jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea, the issue is governed by 4 V.S.A.
436, which creates "[o]ne district court having statewide jurisdiction."
Reversed and remanded.
FOR THE COURT:
_______________________________________
Associate Justice
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
FN1. Petitioner, in a "Motion in Opposition to the Court's Order for
Supplemental Briefing," notes that his prior petition was described by this
Court as a petition for "habeas corpus relief" and not as a PCR petition.
In re Laws, No. 2004-118, slip op. at 1 (Vt. Sept. 29, 2004) (unreported
mem.). He argues that the current petition is therefore his first PCR
petition and should not be subject to the rules of successive petitions.
However, the PCR statutes in Title 13 are merely a venue device and are not
intended to affect the availability of habeas corpus relief. Shuttle v.
Patrissi, 158 Vt. 127, 130 n.1, 605 A.2d 845, 847 n.1 (1992). Furthermore,
as discussed infra, 13-22, the federal case law on which we rely
makes no distinction between previous petitions brought in accordance with
PCR statutes and general habeas corpus petitions when considering
successive petitions. See Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15 (1963)
(holding that "controlling weight may be given to denial of a prior
application for federal habeas corpus or 2255 [federal PCR statute]
relief" in certain circumstances to deny successive petitions)
FN2. Neither petitioner nor the State adequately addressed this ground for
denying relief in the first round of briefing. Accordingly, we appointed
counsel for petitioner and requested supplemental briefing on the extent to
which petitioner's claims were barred under 7134 and the standard
articulated by Justice Holden in his concurrence in Provencher.
FN3. By contrast, issues not raised at trial and preserved for appeal are
allowed under this doctrine. In re Carter, 2004 VT 21, 10, 176 Vt.
322, 848 A.2d 281.
FN4. In 1996, Congress significantly amended 2255 with the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) to restrict the availability of
second and successive PCR petitions under federal law. Pub. L. No.
104-132, 105, 110 Stat. 1220. Because our 7134 retains the language
that was present in the prior version of the federal statute, to the extent
we rely on federal case law, we look to those decisions interpreting the
pre-AEDPA version of 2255.
FN5. The Court noted that there is a separate category of cases where a
showing of cause is not required: those "extraordinary instances when a
constitutional violation probably has caused the conviction of one innocent
of the crime." McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 494.
FN6. The State contends it sufficiently pleaded abuse of the writ to put
petitioner on notice and allow him the opportunity to respond. The State's
argument in its motion for summary judgment is not sufficiently detailed as
required by the McCleskey standard quoted above. |