(a) If a person who has been sentenced to a term or terms of imprisonment is convicted
of another offense punishable by imprisonment before he or she has been discharged
from the former sentence or sentences, the court may sentence him or her to an additional
term of imprisonment and shall specify whether this additional term shall be served
concurrent with or consecutive to the prior sentence or sentences.
(b) In any case where a person is convicted of two or more offenses punishable by imprisonment
and is sentenced for more than one of these offenses, he or she may be sentenced to
as many terms as there are offenses of which he or she is convicted. When such multiple
sentences are imposed they shall run concurrent with or consecutive to each other
as the court determines at the time of sentencing and each shall run from its respective
date of commitment after sentence. When such multiple sentences are in addition to
a prior sentence or sentences from which the person has not yet been discharged, they
shall run concurrently with or consecutive to any prior sentence or sentences as the
court shall determine at the time of sentencing.
(c) In all cases where multiple or additional sentences have been or are imposed, the
term or terms of imprisonment under those sentences shall be determined in accordance
with the following definitions:
(1) When terms run concurrently, the shorter minimum terms merge in and are satisfied
by serving the longest minimum and the shorter maximum terms merge in and are satisfied
by discharge of the longest maximum term.
(2) When terms run consecutively, the minimum terms are added to arrive at an aggregate
minimum to be served equal to the sum of all minimum terms and the maximum terms are
added to arrive at an aggregate maximum equal to the sum of all maximum terms. A person
shall serve no more time on consecutive minimum sentences than the sum of the minimum
terms, regardless of whether the sentences are imposed on the same or different dates.
If a person has served a minimum term and subsequently incurs another criminal charge,
the time the person spends in custody awaiting disposition of the new charge shall
count toward the minimum term of the new sentence, if one is imposed. This subdivision
shall not require the Department of Corrections to release a person from incarceration
to community supervision at the person’s minimum term. (Amended 1971, No. 199 (Adj. Sess.), § 6; 2013, No. 4, § 2, eff. April 3, 2013.)
Andrew Wood v. Jeffrey Wallin & Michael Schirling, 2024 VT 21 (Vt. 2024). · cites it 5ד§ 7032(c)(1)3 (providing that when terms are concurrent “the shorter maximum terms merge in and are satisfied by discharge of the longest maximum term”).”
State v. Aubuchon, 195 Vt. 571 (Vt. 2014). · cites it 2דOne of defendant’s arguments on appeal is that his aggregate minimum and maximum sentences should have been two and one-half years to thirty-three years, instead of the aggregate two-to-thirty-three-year sentence indicated by the court in its ruling on his motion for sentence…”
State v. Kasper, 404 A.2d 85 (Vt. 1979). “He specifically relies on the proposition that the “piling up” of consecutive sentences, so that a long term results from several counts of essentially the same crime, violates the Eighth Amendment if that punishment “is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.”…”
St. Gelais v. Walton, 552 A.2d 782 (Vt. 1988). · cites it 8דAccording to defendant, the two types of sentences are as different as apples and oranges and therefore cannot be aggregated pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7032. 1 We first adopted the State’s proposal and remanded this case to Windsor District Court for clarification of whether that…”
State v. Aubuchon, 2014 VT 12 (Vt. 2014). “13 V.S.A. § 7032(c) is amended to read: (c) In all cases where multiple or addition.”
In Re Perry, 400 A.2d 1013 (Vt. 1979). · cites it 2דHe first claims that the Department erred in failing to compute his sentence under the consecutive sentence statute, 13 V.S.A. § 7032(c), to make his maximum term 36 months instead of 24 and his good time correspondingly 9 months instead of 6.”
In Re Hough, 458 A.2d 1134 (Vt. 1983). · cites it 2דThe State appeals one portion of that order, claiming that it improperly denied the Windsor District Court the discretion, granted by 13 V.S.A. § 7032(a), to set the sentence for the second felony conviction consecutive to the prior split sentence and probation.”
State v. Coe, 554 A.2d 656 (Vt. 1988). “2d 1134 (1983), and 13 V.S.A. § 7032(a) for the proposition that the district court was required to order that his reimposed Vermont sentence run concurrently with the New York sentence.”
Martel v. Lanman, 759 A.2d 65 (Vt. 2000). · cites it 2דSee 13 VS.A. § 7032(b) (granting court authority to impose consecutive sentences “where a person is convicted of two or more offenses punishable by imprisonment and is sentenced for more than one of these offenses”).”
Ladd v. Gorczyk, 2004 VT 87 (Vt. 2004). “In determining an offender’s effective sentence, the sentencing guidelines look to 13 V.S.A. § 7032(c), which provides that when multiple or additional sentences to a prior sentence are imposed, a single sentence is computed as follows: (1) when terms run concurrently, the…”
State v. Senna, 575 A.2d 200 (Vt. 1990). “See 13 V.S.A. § 7032(b); United States v. Phillips, 640 F.”
State v. Matthew S. Hinton, 2020 VT 68 (Vt. 2020). “Consecutive sentences are authorized under 13 V.S.A. § 7032 and the sentence fell well within the statutory limits.”
In Re Hough, 458 A.2d 1134 (Vt. 1983). “The State appeals one portion of that order, claiming that it improperly denied the Windsor District Court the discretion, granted by 13 V.S.A. § 7032(a), to set the sentence for the second felony conviction consecutive to the prior split sentence and probation.”
State v. Coe, 554 A.2d 656 (Vt. 1988). “2d 1134 (1983), and 13 V.S.A. § 7032(a) for the proposition that the district court was required to order that his reimposed Vermont sentence run concurrently with the New York sentence.”
St. Gelais v. Walton, 552 A.2d 782 (Vt. 1988). “According to defendant, the two types of sentences are as different as apples and oranges and therefore cannot be aggregated pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7032. 1 We first adopted the State’s proposal and remanded this case to Windsor District Court for clarification of whether that…”
State v. Senna, 575 A.2d 200 (Vt. 1990). “See 13 V.S.A. § 7032(b); United States v. Phillips, 640 F.”
Martel v. Lanman, 759 A.2d 65 (Vt. 2000). “See 13 VS.A. § 7032(b) (granting court authority to impose consecutive sentences “where a person is convicted of two or more offenses punishable by imprisonment and is sentenced for more than one of these offenses”).”
Andrew Wood v. Jeffrey Wallin & Michael Schirling, 2024 VT 21 (Vt. 2024). “§ 7032(c)(1)3 (providing that when terms are concurrent “the shorter maximum terms merge in and are satisfied by discharge of the longest maximum term”).”
State v. Aubuchon, 2014 VT 12 (Vt. 2014). “13 V.S.A. § 7032(c) is amended to read: (c) In all cases where multiple or addition.”
State v. Aubuchon, 195 Vt. 571 (Vt. 2014). “One of defendant’s arguments on appeal is that his aggregate minimum and maximum sentences should have been two and one-half years to thirty-three years, instead of the aggregate two-to-thirty-three-year sentence indicated by the court in its ruling on his motion for sentence…”
In Re Perry, 400 A.2d 1013 (Vt. 1979). “He first claims that the Department erred in failing to compute his sentence under the consecutive sentence statute, 13 V.S.A. § 7032(c), to make his maximum term 36 months instead of 24 and his good time correspondingly 9 months instead of 6.”
Ladd v. Gorczyk, 2004 VT 87 (Vt. 2004). “In determining an offender’s effective sentence, the sentencing guidelines look to 13 V.S.A. § 7032(c), which provides that when multiple or additional sentences to a prior sentence are imposed, a single sentence is computed as follows: (1) when terms run concurrently, the…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 7032(c)(1) — 5 cases
Andrew Wood v. Jeffrey Wallin & Michael Schirling, 2024 VT 21 (Vt. 2024). “§ 7032(c)(1)3 (providing that when terms are concurrent “the shorter maximum terms merge in and are satisfied by discharge of the longest maximum term”).”
St. Gelais v. Walton, 552 A.2d 782 (Vt. 1988). “According to defendant, the two types of sentences are as different as apples and oranges and therefore cannot be aggregated pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7032. 1 We first adopted the State’s proposal and remanded this case to Windsor District Court for clarification of whether that…”
Martel v. Lanman, 759 A.2d 65 (Vt. 2000). “See 13 VS.A. § 7032(b) (granting court authority to impose consecutive sentences “where a person is convicted of two or more offenses punishable by imprisonment and is sentenced for more than one of these offenses”).”
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.