Vt. R. Crim. P. 11
Reporter’s Note-2016 Emergency Amendment
Rule 11 is amended consistent with the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act (DCCCA), 2013, No. 181 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, which is in pertinent part codified at 13 V.S.A. §§ 80028005, and effective January 1,2016. The amendments direct the court to engage in specific additional colloquy with a defendant entering a plea of guilty or no contest as to the potential collateral consequences of a conviction, extending to such consequences as loss of educational financial aid, suspension or revocation of professional licenses, and restricted access to public benefits such as housing. Defendants must be advised ofthe specific potential collateral consequences enumerated in the statute, of an established Internet source for access to further information about them, and of the availability of process under which some relief from collateral consequences may be obtained.
The amendment contemplates that, in the court’s discretion, defendants may continue to enter pleas of guilty or nolo contendere by written waiver, obviating personal appearance and record Rule 11 colloquy in court, pursuant to Rule 43. (Written waiver would necessarily include acknowledgment and understanding of collateral consequences advisements prescribed by the statute.)
The UCCCA expressly provides that the collateral consequences rights advisements may be given either orally on the record, or in a writing provided to the defendant. 13 V.S.A. § 8005(b). In the entry and acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere pursuant to Rule 11, the statute directs the court to confirm that the defendant has received the notice required by §8005(a); that the defendant has had an opportunity to discuss the notice with counsel, if represented; and understands that there may be collateral consequences to a conviction. In addition, for Rule 11 purposes, the court must provide written notice, as part of a written plea agreement or through another form: (A) that collateral consequences may apply because of the conviction; (B) of the Internet address of the collection of laws related to collateral consequences maintained by the Attorney General pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 8004; (C) that there may be ways to obtain relief from collateral consequences; (D) of contact information for government or nonprofit agencies, groups, or organizations, if any, offering assistance to individuals seeking relief from collateral consequences; and (E) that conviction of a crime in Vermont does not prohibit an individual from voting in Vermont. Id. §8005(b)(2).
The present amendment contemplates that standard forms setting forth the required collateral consequences advisements in writing will be provided and generally used by the court and parties at Rule 5 initial appearance/arraignment and for purposes of Rule 11 entry and acceptance of pleas of guilty or nolo contendere. Existing plea agreement and Rule 43 “waiver” plea forms may also be subject to revision to add the collateral consequences advisements to existing rights advisement and acknowledgment forms. In all cases, it will remain within the discretion, authority and responsibility of the court to conduct such additional colloquy as the court deems necessary in the circumstances to assure that a defendant’s plea of guilty or nolo contendere is knowingly and voluntarily given. Notwithstanding the use of forms, and legislative authorization to do so as to collateral consequences advisements, if a defendant does not waive appearance in court pursuant to Rule 43, and personally appears, the court must engage in full colloquy “substantially complying” with the terms of Rule 11 in conjunction with a defendant’s entry of knowing and voluntary plea of either guilty of nolo contendere. See In re Manosh, 2014 VT 95, 197 Vt. 424, 108 A.3d 212.
13 V.S.A. §§ 8007-8014 establish a process whereby a defendant may seek relief or remittal from certain collateral sanctions, disqualifications, or penalties which follow by operation of law from a criminal conviction. However, §8003 specifies that the DCCCA (Title 13, chapter 231), does not provide a basis for invalidating a plea, conviction, or sentence; a cause of action for money damages; a claim for relief from, or defense to the application of, a collateral consequence based upon a failure to comply with the chapter; or seeking relief from a collateral consequence imposed by another jurisdiction, unless the law of such jurisdiction provides for such relief.
Thus, any claim of error with respect to the sufficiency of collateral consequences advisements in the entry and acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere would be subject to grounds and standards generally applicable to invalidation of pleas. See, e.g., In re Brown, 2015 VT 107, ~~ 11-12, _Vt.-, _ A.3d_; In re Hemingway, 2014 VT 42, ~ 8, 196 Vt. 384,97 A.3d 896; Manosh, 2014 VT 95; State v. Marku, 2004 VT 31, 176 Vt. 607, 850 A.2d 993 (mem.); In re Calderon, 2003 VT 94, 176 Vt. 532, 838 A.2d 109 (mem.); State v. Riefenstahl, 172 Vt. 597, 779 A.2d 675 (2001) (mem.). Cf. State v. Morrissette, 170 Vt. 569, 571, 743 A.2d 1091, 1093 (1999) (mem.), overruled by Manosh, 2014 VT 95. But see In re Parks, 2008 VT 65, 184 Vt. 110, 956 A.2d 545 (“wholesale failure” of Rule 11 compliance on part of court).