Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 13 Chapter 221
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 7030 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 002 : SENTENCE AND COMMITMENT

(Cite as: 13 V.S.A. § 7030)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: State v. Jeffrey M. Ray, 2019 VT 51 (Vt. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jeffrey M. Ray, 2019 VT 51 (Vt. 2019). · cites it 3× “§ 7030(a), the sentencing court must take into account “the nature and circumstances of the crime, the history and character of the defendant, the need for treatment, and the risk to self, others, and the community at large presented by the defendant” in determining the sentence…”
State v. Christopher P. Sullivan, 200 A.3d 670 (Vt. 2018). · cites it 2× “" 13 V.S.A. § 7030(a) (requiring sentencing court to consider these factors).”
State v. Matthew Webster, 179 A.3d 149 (Vt. 2017). “" The court acknowledged that defendant had no prior record of significance, presented a low to moderate risk to reoffend, and likely still required treatment for mental and physical ailments.”
State v. Lumumba, 2014 VT 85 (Vt. 2014). “” 13 V.S.A. § 7030(a). As a result, “[sentences are imposed with regard to the situation and nature of the offender as well as according to the crime charged.”
State v. Scott, 195 Vt. 330 (Vt. 2013). “At the sentencing hearing, the court explicitly stated that, while it did not view defendant as entirely responsible for the accident, a reasonable person could have foreseen that another driver might enter the low-visibility intersection when it was dangerous to do so, so that…”
State v. Scott, 2013 VT 103 (Vt. 2013). “1ly negligent choice to speed through the intersection was a direct and substantial cause of the accident, notwithstanding the decedent’s own role in the collision.”
State v. Jody Herring, 212 A.3d 636 (Vt. 2019). · cites it 2× “" 13 V.S.A. § 7030(a). It "should ground its decision on legitimate goals of criminal justice, including such purposes as punishment, prevention, rehabilitation, and deterrence.”
State v. Randy Hughs, 194 A.3d 1181 (Vt. 2018). “¶ 25. Finally, defendant argues that the sentencing court failed to consider mitigating factors while fashioning his sentence.”
State of Vermont v. Corey Regal Jones, 206 A.3d 153 (Vt. 2019). “Assessing defendant's history and characteristics, the court acknowledged his strong employment background and his participation in charitable activities, but also considered his lengthy criminal history and-most troubling to the court-that he had incurred forty-five jail…”
State v. Dove, 658 A.2d 936 (Vt. 1995). “13 V.S.A. § 7030 (court shall consider nature and circumstances of crime).”
State v. Peter A. Goewey, 2015 VT 142 (Vt. 2015). · cites it 3× “We turn first to the claim that the sentencing judge relied on prejudicial information in imposing sentence by referring to the victim as having been “repeatedly sodomized” by the defendant.”
Francis v. Hofmann, 2008 VT 137 (Vt. 2008). “See 13 V.S.A. § 7030. The sentencing court may impose suspended, i.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 7030(a) — 17 cases
State v. Jeffrey M. Ray, 2019 VT 51 (Vt. 2019). “§ 7030(a), the sentencing court must take into account “the nature and circumstances of the crime, the history and character of the defendant, the need for treatment, and the risk to self, others, and the community at large presented by the defendant” in determining the sentence…”
State v. Christopher P. Sullivan, 200 A.3d 670 (Vt. 2018). “" 13 V.S.A. § 7030(a) (requiring sentencing court to consider these factors).”
State v. Matthew Webster, 179 A.3d 149 (Vt. 2017). “" The court acknowledged that defendant had no prior record of significance, presented a low to moderate risk to reoffend, and likely still required treatment for mental and physical ailments.”
State v. Lumumba, 2014 VT 85 (Vt. 2014). “” 13 V.S.A. § 7030(a). As a result, “[sentences are imposed with regard to the situation and nature of the offender as well as according to the crime charged.”
State v. Scott, 195 Vt. 330 (Vt. 2013). “At the sentencing hearing, the court explicitly stated that, while it did not view defendant as entirely responsible for the accident, a reasonable person could have foreseen that another driver might enter the low-visibility intersection when it was dangerous to do so, so that…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 7030(a)(2) — 1 case
State v. Jeffrey Rivard (Vt. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.