The court is not required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief
on behalf of the same prisoner. (Added 1966, No. 41 (Sp. Sess.), § 1(d), eff. March 12, 1966.)
In Re Laws, 2007 VT 54 (Vt. 2007). · cites it 2דThe 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,…”
In re Bruyette., 2014 VT 30 (Vt. 2014). · cites it 4דThe State moved to dismiss the petition under 13 V.S.A. § 7134 because it was “a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.”
Charles Chandler v. State, 2016 VT 62 (Vt. 2016). · cites it 5דPlaintiff argues *228 that the trial court erred in construing and dismissing his pleading as a successive petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) that raises claims decided on the merits in an earlier PCR proceeding under 13 V.S.A. § 7134. He argues that the bar on successive…”
In re Edwin A. Towne, Jr., 182 A.3d 1149 (Vt. 2018). “" 13 V.S.A. § 7134. We have recognized that this provision applies to "relitigation of claims actually raised and decided on the merits in an earlier PCR.”
State v. Provencher, 270 A.2d 147 (Vt. 1970). · cites it 2דNeither did he claim indigency nor ask to be present in court at the time his motion to vacate was advanced for consideration.”
In Re Raymond, 400 A.2d 1004 (Vt. 1979). “Although the superior eourt might have discretion to refuse to entertain the second petition on the ground that it seeks “similar relief,” 13 V.S.A. § 7134, this is an open question, and the superior court might in any case decide to hear the matter.”
State v. Rushford, 241 A.2d 306 (Vt. 1968). “In denying the petition, the lower court found and determined that there had been no violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights.”
In re Reuschel, 446 A.2d 343 (Vt. 1982). “” 13 V.S.A. § 7134. Dismissal of the second petition is also justified under our holding in Garceau v.”
Garceau v. State, 236 A.2d 661 (Vt. 1967). “Dismissal of this aspect of the petition was justified under the provisions of 13 V.S.A. §7134. Order affirmed.”
In Re Mayer, 303 A.2d 803 (Vt. 1973). “We also agree with the position of the lower court that this second motion could have been denied on the authority of 13 V.S.A. § 7134. The petitioner has had every opportunity to challenge his 1970 conviction *251 through his appeal, his various motions for post conviction…”
In re Laws, 928 A.2d 1210 (Vt. 2007). “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.”
Chandler v. State of Vermont (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015). · cites it 3דThe State argues that this is a successive PCR petition barred by 13 V.S.A. § 7134 and the principles articulated in In re Laws, 2007 VT 54 , 182 Vt.”
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.