State v. Bickel

State v. Bickel  (97-214); 166 Vt. 633; 698 A.2d 243

[Filed 17-Jun-1997]

                          ENTRY ORDER

                 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-214

                         JUNE TERM, 1997


State of Vermont                }     APPEALED FROM:
                                }
     v.                         }     District Court of Vermont
                                }     Unit 1, Windham Circuit
Charles Bickel                  }
                                }     DOCKET NO. 885/6/7-6-97 WmCr


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant was arraigned on June 12, 1997 on charges of aggravated
  assault, burglary, unlawful mischief, disorderly conduct, domestic assault,
  DUI, stalking and disturbing the peace by telephone.  After reviewing
  affidavits in support of probable cause, the trial court ordered that
  defendant be held without bail pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7553a.  The trial
  court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for June 19, 1997.  At arraignment,
  defendant did not object to the week-long delay in scheduling.  On appeal,
  defendant nonetheless claims that the trial court must hold an evidentiary
  hearing before it may detain him without bail under § 7553a or, in the
  alternative, that it must hold the evidentiary hearing more quickly than a
  week after the arraignment.

       13 V.S.A. § 7553a permits the denial of bail when the evidence of
  guilt is great and "the person's release poses a substantial threat of
  physical violence."  13 V.S.A. § 7553 permits the trial court to hold the
  defendant without bail when the defendant is charged with an offense
  punishable by life imprisonment.  This Court has held that a defendant may
  be held temporarily without bail under § 7553 if, at arraignment, the court
  finds probable cause to believe a qualifying offense was committed and
  defendant committed it.  State v. Passino, 154 Vt. 377, 383, 577 A.2d 281,
  285 (1990).  When a defendant is held temporarily without bail under 13
  V.S.A. § 7553, the "the bail hearing must be scheduled as soon as
  reasonably possible to protect defendant's right to bail."  Id.  Section
  7553a is similar to § 7553 in that both provisions permit detention only if
  the evidence of guilt is great, and neither section guarantees an
  evidentiary hearing prior to the order of detention.  Given these
  similarities, Passino applies to § 7553a bail hearings absent specific
  legislative direction to the contrary.  Thus, we reject the claim that the
  court had to hold an evidentiary hearing before ruling that defendant be
  held without bail under § 7553a.

       Defendant did not object to the week-long delay at arraignment, or
  suggest any alternative dates.  As a result, there is no evidence
  indicating that the delay is unreasonable.  I am, therefore, unable to
  review the claim that the evidentiary hearing must be held earlier.

       Affirmed.

                              FOR THE COURT:

                              _______________________________________
                              John A. Dooley, Associate Justice


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         ON MOTION FOR REARGUMENT

State v. Bickel  (97-214)  [Filed 26-Jun-1997]

                          ENTRY ORDER

                 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-214

                         JUNE TERM, 1997


State of Vermont                }     APPEALED FROM:
                                }
                                }
     v.                         }     District Court of Vermont
                                }     Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit
Charles Bickel                  }
                                }     DOCKET NO. 885/6/7-6-97WmCr


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant's motion for reargument of his bail appeal before the full
  Court has again been referred to the undersigned Justice.  There is no
  authorization for reargument before the full Court in matters governed by
  the recent constitutional amendment; the procedure for disagreement with
  the single justice is review by a panel of three justices pursuant to 13
  V.S.A. § 7556(e).  The provision for referral to the full Court, 13 V.S.A.
  § 7556(b), does not apply when bail is denied pursuant to the
  constitutional amendment.  In any event, I decline to refer the matter to
  the full Court.

       The question of whether the trial court delayed the evidentiary
  hearing too long is now moot because a hearing has been held on this date. 
  The question of whether State v. Passino, 154 Vt. 377, 383, 577 A.2d 281,
  285 (1990), applies to cases under the recent constitutional amendment is
  also moot, but I agree that it should be reviewed under the exception for
  issues capable of repetition yet evading review.  I decline, however, to
  change my opinion on that issue.  The motion to reargue is denied.



                              FOR THE COURT:



                              _______________________________________
                              John A. Dooley, Associate Justice