ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO 2003232MAY TERM 2003 State of VermontvAPPEALED FROM State v Sauve 159 Vt 566 577 1993 thatA in order to have bailrevoked the State of Vermont v A ID: 823699
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "State of Vermont v. Anthony Deyohttps://..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
State of Vermont v. Anthony Deyohttps://
State of Vermont v. Anthony Deyohttps://www.vermontjudiciary.org/UPEO2001-2005/eo03232.aspx[3/13/2017 7:58:08 AM]ENTRY ORDERSUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-232MAY TERM, 2003 State of Vermontv.}}APPEALED FROM: State v. Sauve, 159 Vt. 566, 577 (1993), thatA in order to have bailrevoked, the State of Vermont v. Anthony Deyohttps://www.vermontjudiciary.org/UPEO2001-2005/eo03232.aspx[3/13/2017 7:58:08 AM]alleged victim gave a written statement dated March 19, 2003 in which she again w/o being scared that he might try to take off w/ me, or something As the trial court noted, the s only motive for violating his conditions of release by traveling to Charlestown could be to harass the trial courtDefendant makes much of the fact that allegations that the defendant was seen in Charlestown on April 13, 2003 formedof the trial courtrevoke bail even though the State's motions requesting that defendants right to bail be revoked was based on a violation occurring on March 16, 2003. Because we find no objection to theintroduction of evidence about the April 13, 2003 violation in the transcript, we c
onsider only whether the trial courtcons
onsider only whether the trial courtconsideration of this evidence amounted to plain error affecting substantial brought to the attention of the court below. V.R.Cr.P. 52(b); see review claims raised initially on appeal unless they amount to plain We will find plain error only in the rare and extraordinary case where the error is that it strikes at the very heart of a ). We find no plain error in the consideration of activities on April 13, 2003. Even assuming arguendo that the testimonys written opinion includes findings and conclusions regarding the defendantFinally, defendant argues that even if we find there was sufficient evidence to uphold the trial courts findings that heviolated his conditions of release, the trial court erred in revoking his right to bail rather than taking less restrictivesteps. While we agree that other less restrictive measures were at the trial courts disposal, 13 V.S.A. 7575 does notrequire the trial court to attempt any intermediate steps but allows bail to be revoked when a defendant has engaged in.BY THE COURT:_______________________________________