State v. Tripp

State v. Tripp (2003-001); 176 Vt. 604; 848 A.2d 343

2004 VT 26

[Filed 12-Mar-2004]
    

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 26

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-001

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2003
    

  State of Vermont                    }      APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }      District Court of Vermont,
       v.                             }      Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit
                                      }  
  Peter C. Tripp                      }
                                      }      DOCKET NO. 581-6-99 CaCr

                                             Trial Judge: Alan W. Cook



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

       ¶  1.  Defendant appeals from a conditional guilty plea to
  possession of marijuana.  He claims the court should have suppressed
  certain evidence because it was gathered in violation of Article 11 of the
  Vermont Constitution.  We affirm because defendant waived the issue.

        
       ¶  2.  Defendant pled guilty after our remand in State v. Schofner,
  174 Vt. 430, 434, 800 A.2d 1072, 1077 (2002), an interlocutory appeal from
  the trial court's order suppressing evidence.  At issue in the
  interlocutory appeal was whether the trial court properly suppressed
  evidence collected pursuant to a search warrant.  The search warrant was
  based on information gathered by tax listers who entered defendant's land
  to examine his property for tax assessment purposes.  We reversed the
  suppression order because it was not justified under precedents
  interpreting the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 
  Schofner, 174 Vt. at 434, 800 A.2d  at 1076.  Although defendant raised a
  claim under Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution before the trial court
  and later on appeal, he failed to brief the issue adequately in both
  instances.  Our entry order in Schofner thus rejected defendant's Article
  11 claim.  We explained that defendant "failed to articulate any basis that
  would justify affording [him] greater protection under Article 11 than is
  required by the Fourth Amendment."  Id., 800 A.2d  at 1077.  On remand,
  defendant moved to suppress the same evidence on Article 11 grounds and, in
  contrast to his first motion, provided a full explanation for his position. 
  The trial court denied the motion finding that defendant had waived the
  claim.  We agree.  "[F]ailure to specify all the grounds for suppression
  prevents an untimely attempt to add new grounds."  State v. Clark, 152 Vt.
  304, 308, 565 A.2d 1332, 1334 (1989).  Defendant waived his Article 11
  claim by not presenting it adequately in his original motion to suppress or
  in his brief in the interlocutory appeal.  Accordingly, we find no error
  and do not reach the merits of defendant's Article 11 claim. 

       Affirmed.




                                       BY THE COURT:



                                       _______________________________________
                                       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Chief Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       Paul L. Reiber, Associate Justice