(a) Any court imposing a sentence under the authority of this title, within 90 days of
the imposition of that sentence, or within 90 days after entry of any order or judgment
of the Supreme Court upholding a judgment of conviction, may upon its own initiative
or motion of the defendant, reduce the sentence.
(b) A State’s Attorney or the Attorney General, within seven business days of the imposition
of a sentence, may file with the sentencing judge a motion to increase, reduce, or
otherwise modify the sentence. This motion shall set forth reasons why the sentence
should be altered. After hearing, the court may confirm, increase, reduce, or otherwise
modify the sentence.
(c) After a motion is filed under subsection (b) of this section, a defendant’s time for
filing an appeal under 12 V.S.A. § 2383 shall commence to run upon entry of a final order under subsection (b). (Added 1977, No. 251 (Adj. Sess.); amended 1981, No. 223 (Adj. Sess.), § 12; 2017, No. 11, § 29.)
State v. Rice, 483 A.2d 248 (Vt. 1984). · cites it 7דThe Sentence Review Act, 13 V.S.A. § 7042, as amended by No. 223 of the Acts of 1981 Adjourned Session, permits the State, within seven days of the imposition of an initial sentence, to file with the sentencing judge a motion to increase that sentence.”
State v. Therrien, 442 A.2d 1299 (Vt. 1982). · cites it 6דOn May 5, 1981, pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7042, defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence.”
State v. Dean Jeffrey Stearns, 2022 VT 54 (Vt. 2022). · cites it 6דHowever, “[i]t is well established that sentence reconsideration pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7042 is not intended to address post-incarceration matters.”
Stephan Palmer, Sr. v. Mark Furlan & State of Vermont, 2019 VT 42 (Vt. 2019). “A defendant in custody under sentence, such as Palmer, may also be entitled to sentence reduction through a successful PCR proceeding pursuant to 13 V.”
State v. Dean Jeffrey Stearns, 2021 VT 48 (Vt. 2021). · cites it 6ד), § 1 (adding 13 V.S.A. § 7042). The State points out that the Vermont rule omits “dismissal of the appeal” and “having the effect of upholding” a conviction.”
State v. Hance, 596 A.2d 365 (Vt. 1991). · cites it 3ד35 and 13 V.S.A. § 7042 for sentence reconsideration.”
State v. Saari, 568 A.2d 344 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 2דThe State is required, under 13 V.S.A. § 7042(b), to file a motion to reconsider within seven days of imposition of sentence.”
State v. King, 2007 VT 124 (Vt. 2007). · cites it 2דSentence reconsideration under 13 V.S.A. § 7042 and Rule 35 is a limited remedy.”
State v. Dean, 536 A.2d 909 (Vt. 1987). · cites it 2דOn May 3, 1983, defendant filed a timely notice for reconsideration of the sentences pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7042 and V.R.Cr.P. 35. Defendant argued that the sentences were not in the best interest of justice and constituted cruel and unusual punishment because the length was…”
State v. Thompson, 2011 VT 98 (Vt. 2011). · cites it 4ד) (“It is well established that sentence reconsideration pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7042 is not intended to address post-incarceration matters.”
State v. Hunt, 485 A.2d 109 (Vt. 1984). · cites it 2ד13 V.S.A. § 7042. These may be more cumbersome and costly procedures, but we hold that the presence of the lawyer trained presiding judge below, the limits on the authority of assistant judges in Dunkerley, supra, and V.”
State v. Cyr, 449 A.2d 926 (Vt. 1982). · cites it 2דSubsequently defendant was sentenced on each count to a concurrent sentence of not less than 32 days nor more than 1 year in the custody of the commissioner of corrections, 30 days of which was to be served on weekends.”
State v. Dean Jeffrey Stearns, 2022 VT 54 (Vt. 2022). “However, “[i]t is well established that sentence reconsideration pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7042 is not intended to address post-incarceration matters.”
State v. Dean Jeffrey Stearns, 2021 VT 48 (Vt. 2021). “), § 1 (adding 13 V.S.A. § 7042). The State points out that the Vermont rule omits “dismissal of the appeal” and “having the effect of upholding” a conviction.”
State v. King, 2007 VT 124 (Vt. 2007). “Sentence reconsideration under 13 V.S.A. § 7042 and Rule 35 is a limited remedy.”
State v. Thompson, 2011 VT 98 (Vt. 2011). “) (“It is well established that sentence reconsideration pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7042 is not intended to address post-incarceration matters.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 7042(b) — 5 cases
State v. Rice, 483 A.2d 248 (Vt. 1984). “The Sentence Review Act, 13 V.S.A. § 7042, as amended by No. 223 of the Acts of 1981 Adjourned Session, permits the State, within seven days of the imposition of an initial sentence, to file with the sentencing judge a motion to increase that sentence.”
State v. Saari, 568 A.2d 344 (Vt. 1989). “The State is required, under 13 V.S.A. § 7042(b), to file a motion to reconsider within seven days of imposition of sentence.”
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.