Supreme Court of Vermont· 7/19/1991
State v. Hance
Citations
- 596 A.2d 365
- 157 Vt. 222
- 1991 Vt. LEXIS 160
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that defendant can waive constitutional or statutory rights if “waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary”
- recognizing \limited usefulness of sentence reconsideration when the sentence is based on a plea agreement\
- stating that although Rule 35 has “limited usefulness” when a plea bargain is involved, “[w]e do not suggest that a sentence adopted pursuant to a plea agreement should never be subject to modification” under § 7042(a) and Rule 35
- noting “our decisions authorize a defendant to waive virtually any right, constitutional or statutory, as long as the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” and collecting cases
- rationale of case relied upon by defendant rejected as dicta and because contrary to weight of authority in other jurisdictions
- sentence reconsideration is highly discretionary remedy that does not occupy a central place in the administration of justice
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Allen, C.J., and Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Vermont· 2005-08-26· cited 21×
- State v. KingSupreme Court of Vermont· 2007-11-16· cited 16×
- John West v. North Branch Fire District 1Supreme Court of Vermont· 2021-06-18· cited 12×
- Fortier v. ByrnesSupreme Court of Vermont· 1996-03-15· cited 10×
- State v. PlattSupreme Court of Vermont· 1992-05-08· cited 9×
- In re Jeffrey R. Gay IISupreme Court of Vermont· 2019-09-20· cited 8×
- In re Mark JankowskiSupreme Court of Vermont· 2016-10-14· cited 6×
- State v. Ernest PhillipsSupreme Court of Vermont· 2018-08-10· cited 4×
- In re Michael LewisSupreme Court of Vermont· 2021-04-30· cited 4×
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Vermont· 2011-08-31· cited 4×
- State v. Aita GurungSupreme Court of Vermont· 2025-08-29· cited 4×
- Agency of Transportation v. Timberlake Associates, LLC (R.L. Vallee, Inc. and Crystal Clear Hospitality, LLC, Appellants)Supreme Court of Vermont· 2024-03-08· cited 3×
- State v. Loren KandziorSupreme Court of Vermont· 2020-05-29· cited 1×
- State v. Bryan LoveSupreme Court of Vermont· 2017-07-21
- in re dissolution of koffee kupVermont Superior Court· 2024-06-05
- Couture v. PallitoVermont Superior Court· 2018-01-25
- Smedy v. DocVermont Superior Court· 2024-10-10
Cites
20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- People v. SeabergNew York Court of Appeals· 1989-06-15· cited 1,777×
- People v. FrancabanderaNew York Court of Appeals· 1974-03-28· cited 141×
- Jolly v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1981-01-07· cited 86×
- State v. EthingtonArizona Supreme Court· 1979-02-22· cited 56×
- State v. CaronSupreme Court of Vermont· 1990-12-21· cited 50×
- People v. ButlerMichigan Court of Appeals· 1972-10-24· cited 41×
- In Re HallSupreme Court of Vermont· 1983-11-01· cited 39×
- People Ex Rel. VanMeveren v. DIST. CT., ETC.Supreme Court of Colorado· 1978-02-21· cited 38×
- State v. TherrienSupreme Court of Vermont· 1982-02-02· cited 36×
- State v. WhitchurchSupreme Court of Vermont· 1990-05-25· cited 34×
- United States v. Ronald H. SemlerNinth Circuit· 1989-08-30· cited 31×
- State v. DeanSupreme Court of Vermont· 1987-10-09· cited 29×
- People v. FearingAppellate Court of Illinois· 1982-11-30· cited 21×
- State v. ConnSupreme Court of Vermont· 1989-07-07· cited 17×
- State v. MerrillSupreme Court of Vermont· 1990-11-30· cited 16×
- Ballweber v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 1990-06-05· cited 15×
- State v. BuckSupreme Court of Vermont· 1981-02-03· cited 15×
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Vermont· 1990-11-30· cited 10×
- State v. LaPineSupreme Court of Vermont· 1987-03-06· cited 8×
- State v. LertolaSupreme Court of Vermont· 1982-02-02· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.