In re Crannell
Supreme Court of Vermont
1Concurrence
Dooley, J.,
¶ 11. concurring. While I agree that we must reverse the decision to deny appellant counsel and agree that the version of 13 V.S.A. § 5233 in effect when appellant filed his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) controls, I would reverse on another ground. In my view, the Defender General waived his ability to claim the unreviewable right to label this case as frivolous by the actions and inactions that occurred during the nine years the PCR case was pending and the Defender General was under court orders to provide representation or fund its provision. On this *412point, I…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Vermont v. BrillonSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- State v. BrillonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
- In Re BaileySupreme Court of Vermont · 2009
- People v. DemarestColorado Court of Appeals · 1990
- Hixson v. PlumpSupreme Court of Vermont · 1997