In re Crannell
Supreme Court of Vermont
1Opinion of the CourtBurgess, J.
¶ 1. Appellant Charles Crannell appeals the decision of the Rutland Civil Division that he is no longer entitled to an appointed attorney to handle his post-conviction relief (PCR) proceedings. Appellant’s previously assigned counsel filed a notice of withdrawal under 13 V.S.A. § 5233(a)(3), based on lack of legal merit in the PCR, a withdrawal which must be honored under In re Bailey, 2009 VT 122, 187 Vt. 176, 992 A.2d 276. Bailey held that, pursuant to an amendment to the statute, upon the Defender General’s determination that a PCR claim was frivolous for lack of merit, a petitioner had no…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In Re BaileySupreme Court of Vermont · 2009
- In re GouldSupreme Court of Vermont · 2004
- Breslin v. SynnottSupreme Court of Vermont · 2012
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. JohnstoneSupreme Court of Vermont · 2013
- In re Bruyette.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2014
- In re Bruyette.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2014
- In re Bruyette.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2014
- In re CrannellSupreme Court of Vermont · 2012
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.