Discretion in Sentencing and PSI Requirements: State v. Danny Main, Jr.

Introduction

In State v. Danny Main, Jr., 2025 VT 24‐AP‐146, the Vermont Supreme Court considered two primary issues on appeal from a habitual‐offender sentence entered by the Superior Court, Bennington Unit:

Whether the trial court abused its sentencing discretion by imposing a nine‐to‐ten‐year term of incarceration rather than facilitating outpatient drug treatment;
Whether it was plain error for the court to proceed without a complete presentence investigation (PSI) report, specifically the omission of the DUI–serious bodily injury count and the habitual‐offender enhancement from that report.

The defendant, Danny Main, Jr., had pleaded guilty to DUI resulting in serious bodily injury, drug possession, and fourth‐offense DUI, with a habitual‐offender enhancement. The court imposed a within‐range sentence after reviewing a PSI report (albeit incomplete), victim‐impact statements, and defendant’s allocution. On appeal, the defendant challenged both the substance of the sentence and the procedural sufficiency of the PSI. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Superior Court’s sentence. It held:

The sentencing court acted within its broad discretion under 13 V.S.A. § 7030(a) when it prioritized public safety, defendant’s repeated violations of release conditions, and the severe injuries caused by the DUI crash over the availability of in‐custody treatment programs.
Under V.R.Cr.P. 32(c)(1)(B), a PSI report is discretionary when a defendant has two or more prior felony convictions. Even if one count and the habitual‐offender allegation were omitted from the PSI, the omission did not constitute plain error, because the defendant had full notice of the charges and was not prejudiced.

Consequently, the defendant’s arguments—that incarceration would thwart needed drug treatment and that the incomplete PSI was plain error—were rejected. The nine‐to‐ten‐year judgment of sentence remained undisturbed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State v. Lumumba, 2014 VT 85, 197 Vt. 315 – Established that sentencing decisions will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion or improper information, and outlined the § 7030(a) factors.
State v. Sullivan, 2018 VT 112, 208 Vt. 540 – Confirmed that trial courts assess witness credibility and weigh allocution statements; appellate courts do not reweigh those findings.
State v. Ray, 2019 VT 51, 210 Vt. 496 – Articulated the “plain‐error” standard in Vermont criminal appeals, requiring an obvious error that prejudices substantial rights and undermines judicial integrity.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in two parts:

1. Sentencing Discretion under 13 V.S.A. § 7030(a)

Section 7030(a) directs courts to consider “the nature and circumstances of the crime, the history and character of the defendant, the need for treatment, and the risk to self, others, and the community.” The Superior Court:

Emphasized the serious bodily harm caused by defendant’s DUI crash, including reconstructive surgeries and chronic pain;
Recited defendant’s extensive criminal record—four felonies, eleven misdemeanors, multiple DUIs, drug‐related offenses, repeated violations of release conditions—and found probation had failed;
Acknowledged and weighed defendant’s allocution and program participation in custody, but found his pattern of driving while impaired posed an ongoing public safety risk;
Chose incarceration as necessary to protect the public, punish wrongdoing, deter future offenses, and secure rehabilitation when community‐based treatment had proven insufficient.

Because the nine‐to‐ten‐year term was within both statutory limits and the plea‐agreement cap, and was supported by proper factual findings, the court did not abuse its discretion.

2. Presentence Investigation Report and Plain Error

Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1)(B) permits the trial court, in its discretion, to dispense with a PSI if the defendant has two or more prior felony convictions. Here:

The court did order a PSI and received a report that omitted one DUI count and the habitual‐offender enhancement.
No objection was lodged below, triggering the plain‐error standard on appeal (State v. Ray).
The Supreme Court held that because a PSI was not mandatory, and because defendant suffered no prejudice—having had advance notice of all charges and an opportunity to address victim statements—the omission was not an obvious error affecting substantial rights or judicial integrity.

Impact

State v. Main clarifies two key tenets of Vermont criminal procedure and sentencing:

Trial courts retain broad discretion under 13 V.S.A. § 7030(a) to impose within‐range sentences when public safety demands outweigh community‐based treatment promises.
V.R.Cr.P. 32(c)(1)(B) allows courts to dispense with or accept an incomplete PSI without triggering plain error, provided there is no prejudice to the defendant’s substantial rights.

Future litigants should note that challenges to an incomplete PSI must be raised below, and that sentencing courts need not subordinate public protection to rehabilitative convenience when a defendant’s record demonstrates repeated noncompliance and risk.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Habitual‐Offender Enhancement: An added penalty provision that increases the maximum allowable sentence—up to life imprisonment—when a defendant has multiple prior felony convictions.
Presentence Investigation (PSI) Report: A document prepared by probation officers summarizing the defendant’s background, criminal history, and rehabilitative needs to assist the sentencing court.
Plain Error: A high standard of appellate review applied when a defendant fails to object at trial. The error must be obvious, affect substantial rights, and undermine fairness or integrity.
Allocution: The defendant’s personal statement at sentencing expressing remorse, acceptance of responsibility, or plans for rehabilitation.

Conclusion

State v. Danny Main, Jr. reaffirms the Vermont judiciary’s commitment to deference in sentencing, particularly where serious harm and a pattern of recidivism call for incarceration. It also confirms that presentence investigations remain discretionary when a defendant has multiple felonies, and that absent timely objection, appellate courts will not overturn sentences based on minor omissions in a PSI. This decision will guide future practitioners in both advocating for treatment‐based alternatives and in preserving procedural objections at sentencing.