State v. Sodaro

State v. Sodaro  (2004-125); 178 Vt. 602; 878 A.2d 301

2005 VT 67

[Filed 22-Jun-2005]


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 67

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-125

                              MARCH TERM, 2005

  State of Vermont                  }   APPEALED FROM:
                                    }
                                    }   District Court of Vermont,
       v.                           }   Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
                                    }   
  John Sodaro                       }
                                    }   DOCKET NO. 888-2-02 CnCr

                                        Trial Judge: Ben W. Joseph

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

       ¶  1.   Defendant John Sodaro appeals from a Chittenden District Court
  order denying his 13 V.S.A. § 7042 motion for sentence reconsideration on
  grounds that it is unsupported by the evidence.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.   Defendant, whose criminal record spans twenty years, has a
  congenital brain defect and experiences periodic seizures.  He has been
  diagnosed as suffering from a personality disorder and post-traumatic
  stress disorder.  Over the years, defendant's illnesses have been treated
  with various medications.  Defendant's impairments led to his alcohol abuse
  and other self-destructive behavior.  

       ¶  3.   In 2002, defendant was charged with three counts of driving
  while intoxicated (DWI) and three counts of driving with a suspended
  license (DLS).  He reached a plea agreement with the State in December 2002
  which required defendant to plead guilty to the six DWI and DLS charges,
  and in return, the State would drop nine other charges against him.  After
  the district court accepted the plea agreement and before it imposed
  sentence, defendant incurred more criminal charges.  The additional charges
  arose from an incident in which defendant, while intoxicated, barricaded
  himself in a motel room and fired a gun three times.  The district court
  eventually imposed a suspended term of two to sixteen-and-one-half years,
  with probation and two years to serve.

       ¶  4.   In its sentencing decision, the district court recognized that
  defendant required medical treatment to address his brain dysfunction and
  consequent problematic behavior.  It made a note on the mittimus to the
  Commissioner of Corrections that defendant should stay on his current
  medications and he should be permitted to consult with his treating
  physician. 

       ¶  5.   As defendant's doctor expected, defendant had difficulty
  adjusting to life in prison.  A prison psychiatrist met with defendant in
  August 2003.  Defendant and the doctor discussed taking defendant off of
  one of his medications, Respirdal, because defendant said he did not think
  the drug was helping him.  He went off the medication, and filed the
  present motion for sentence reconsideration the following month.  In his
  motion, defendant alleged that he was not receiving the medical treatment
  that the court expected he would get when it imposed the original sentence. 
  While the motion was pending, defendant attempted suicide.  The Department
  of Corrections (DOC) transferred defendant to the Northwest State
  Correctional Facility so that he could receive treatment from the
  facility's on-site mental health services unit.  

       ¶  6.   In February 2004, the district court denied defendant's motion
  for reconsideration.  The court rejected defendant's theory that the lack
  of medical treatment he received caused his suicide attempt and his other
  self-destructive behavior in prison.  The court noted defendant's history
  of suicidal gestures and found no causal connection between his current
  problems and the medical care DOC provided to him.  The court concluded
  that defendant's motion was "simply an effort on his part to get out of
  jail before serving the entire two year [term]."  This appeal followed.

       ¶  7.   On appeal, defendant argues that the evidence does not support
  the court's order.  He claims that the evidence established that his brain
  disorder and related problems require competent medical care, and that he
  has not received such care while in DOC custody. 

       ¶  8.   We will affirm the court's findings if they are based on the
  evidence, even where conflicting or contradictory evidence exists.  State
  v. Tongue, 170 Vt. 409, 412, 753 A.2d 356, 358 (2000).  In this case, the
  record fully supports the district court's findings and conclusions.  The
  court heard testimony about defendant's impaired brain function and how
  that affects his behavior.  It made findings about defendant's medical
  history that defendant does not challenge on appeal.  The court determined
  that defendant's self-destructive behavior in prison was consistent with
  his past and did not result from the correctional facility's medical
  services, or lack thereof.  In essence, defendant's motion sought to remedy
  the lack of appropriate health care services through sentence modification. 
  Sentence reconsideration is not the right remedy for an alleged lack of
  prison health care services.

       ¶  9.   It is well established that sentence reconsideration pursuant
  to 13 V.S.A. § 7042 is not intended to address post-incarceration matters. 
  State v. LaPine, 148 Vt. 14, 15, 527 A.2d 1150, 1150 (1987) (per curiam). 
  Rather, the statute's purpose is to give the district court an opportunity
  to consider anew "the circumstances and factors present at the time of the
  original sentencing."  Id.  In this case, defendant grounded his motion on
  post-sentencing circumstances rather than some misapprehension by the court
  of the circumstances that existed in July 2003 when it sentenced defendant. 
  At sentencing, the district court knew about defendant's brain disorder and
  his medical history.  It ordered defendant to serve two years of the
  otherwise suspended sentence in recognition of defendant's long criminal
  record and the danger he posed to the community.  The court observed that
  defendant would likely get better medical care outside of prison, but it
  explained that protecting the community was a greater concern.  Nothing in
  defendant's motion altered the court's judgment that a period of
  incarceration was appropriate given the circumstances.

       ¶  10.   The district court's order denying reconsideration of
  defendant's sentence is supported by the evidence and is consistent with
  the purpose of § 7042.  No error appears.  

       Affirmed.



  BY THE COURT:



  _______________________________________
  Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

  _______________________________________
  John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

  _______________________________________
  Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

  _______________________________________
  Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice

  _______________________________________
  Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice (Ret.)
  Specially Assigned