Vermont Reaffirms the Narrow Scope of Sentence Reconsideration: No Hearing or COVID-Specific Findings Required

Introduction

In State v. Walter Taylor, III (Vt. Sept. 5, 2025), a three-justice panel of the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial—without holding an evidentiary hearing—of a motion for sentence reconsideration. The case arises from violent assaults committed by the defendant against an ex-girlfriend and a neighbor who intervened, followed by convictions for aggravated assault, domestic assault (with a prior), assault and robbery, and obstruction of justice. After a lengthy sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of eight to twenty-two years to serve. Post-affirmance of his convictions on direct appeal, the defendant asked the trial court to revisit (reconsider) that sentence.

The defendant’s motion argued the sentence was more severe than necessary and urged that the court: (1) should have made findings concerning the harsh conditions of pretrial incarceration during COVID-19; (2) accorded undue weight to his prison disciplinary record in the presentence investigation (PSI); (3) erred in treating him as an ongoing public-safety risk; (4) undervalued the defense expert’s report; and (5) should not have imposed a controlling maximum exceeding the fifteen-year maximum penalty for aggravated assault, which he characterized as the most serious offense.

The trial court denied reconsideration without a hearing, emphasizing that sentence reconsideration is a limited remedy, not a wholesale re-litigation of sentencing factors. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, concluding there was no abuse of discretion.

Court: Vermont Supreme Court (three-justice panel; nonprecedential entry order)
Date: September 5, 2025
Case No.: 24-AP-266
Lower Court: Superior Court, Rutland Unit, Criminal Division (Case No. 21-CR-05873; Judge David R. Fenster)
Procedural Posture: Appeal from denial of a motion for sentence reconsideration following affirmance of the convictions (State v. Taylor, 2023 VT 60, 218 Vt. 536)

Note on precedential status: The opinion is an entry order of a three-justice panel, which the Court notes is not precedent “before any tribunal.” Its reasoning, however, aligns with prior published Vermont cases and thus offers persuasive guidance.

Summary of the Opinion

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial of sentence reconsideration, holding that:

Sentence reconsideration is a limited remedy designed to allow the trial court to reflect on whether the original sentence is unwise or unjust, considering factors the court deems relevant; it is not a venue for a wholesale reappraisal of sentencing principles or reweighing of evidence already considered at sentencing.
The trial court has wide discretion to decide whether to hold an evidentiary hearing and may deny a reconsideration motion without one.
The sentencing court is not required to make explicit findings about COVID-19 incarceration conditions because such conditions are not among the mandatory factors set forth in 13 V.S.A. § 7030(a). While courts may consider other circumstances, they are not obligated to address each non-statutory point explicitly.
Arguments asking the court to reweigh the evidence are insufficient to show that the initial sentence was unwise or unjust.
Unpreserved issues—such as claims about improper reliance on uncharged prison disciplinary conduct or arguments about concurrency based on a single course of conduct—will not be addressed for the first time on appeal.

Applying these principles, the Court concluded there was no abuse of discretion: the trial court explicitly recognized and rejected the defendant’s arguments, explained why a hearing was unnecessary, and reaffirmed the original sentence as correct, fair, and consistent with the seriousness of the conduct and the goals of punishment and deterrence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

State v. King, 2007 VT 124 (mem.), 183 Vt. 539
The Court quoted King for the foundational propositions that sentence reconsideration is a “limited remedy” and that trial courts retain “wide discretion” both in what factors to consider and in whether to deny a motion without an evidentiary hearing. King also emphasizes that reconsideration is not intended as a forum to review post-incarceration events. Here, King underpinned the trial court’s and the Supreme Court’s view that defendant’s motion—largely a request to reweigh evidence already before the court—did not warrant a hearing or relief.
State v. Stearns, 2022 VT 54, 217 Vt. 276
Stearns clarifies that sentence reconsideration is to allow the court to reflect on whether the sentence is “unwise or unjust” and explicitly distinguishes it from the initial sentencing exercise. It rejects the notion that the court must conduct a “wholesale review” of all sentencing factors on reconsideration. In Taylor, the Court used Stearns to reject the defendant’s theory that the court had to “reappraise the underlying sentencing principles” in ruling on his reconsideration motion.
State v. Ray, 2019 VT 51, 210 Vt. 496
Ray stands for the principle that sentencing courts are not required to explicitly address each factor, even when the statute sets forth relevant considerations. Taylor leverages Ray to explain why the trial court was not obligated to address COVID-19 incarceration conditions in express findings, especially since such conditions are not listed in 13 V.S.A. § 7030(a). While courts may consider additional factors, they need not do so expressly.
State v. Oscarson, 2006 VT 30, 179 Vt. 442
Oscarson supplies the standard of review for denial of sentence reconsideration: abuse of discretion, examining whether the trial court withheld discretion or exercised it on clearly untenable or unreasonable grounds. The Supreme Court applied this deferential standard to affirm.
State v. Sole, 2009 VT 24, 185 Vt. 504, and V.R.A.P. 28(a)(4)
These authorities underscore issue preservation. The Court declined to address various arguments—such as an attack on the sentencing court’s reliance on prison disciplinary infractions in the PSI, and a concurrency theory tied to a single episode—because they were not preserved below. The reminder is clear: arguments neither litigated nor decided below will not be entertained on appeal.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning rests on three pillars: scope, discretion, and preservation.

Scope of Sentence Reconsideration
The Court reiterated that sentence reconsideration is not a second bite at the apple. It is a focused opportunity for the sentencing judge to reflect on whether the original sentence was “unwise or unjust,” using such factors “as it believes are relevant.” This framing treats reconsideration as a narrow review that presupposes the adequacy of the original sentencing record and analysis unless a compelling reason is presented to revisit them. Defendant’s arguments—asking the court to reweigh the same record evidence—fall squarely outside this limited remit.
Trial Court Discretion and No-Hearing Denial
The Court reaffirmed the trial court’s “wide discretion” to decide whether to hold a hearing. Here, the sentencing had already been “lengthy” and the reconsideration arguments recycled evidence and claims already litigated at sentencing. Under King and Stearns, it was reasonable to deny without a hearing.
COVID-19 Incarceration Conditions Not a Mandatory Factor
The Court agreed with the trial court that the conditions of pretrial confinement during COVID-19 are not among the mandatory factors in 13 V.S.A. § 7030(a). Citing Ray, the Court reiterated that sentencing judges need not explicitly address every possible factor, even if they may permissibly consider additional circumstances beyond the statute’s list. Consequently, the failure to make express COVID-specific findings did not render the sentence “unwise or unjust.”
Emphasis on the Nature and Circumstances of the Offenses
The sentencing judge underscored that defendant committed a “brutal” assault on a Good Samaritan who attempted to stop an ongoing domestic assault, and that the aggravated assault was “motivated by the obstruction of justice” and precipitated by the domestic assault. The Court held that this articulation—focused on seriousness, public safety, punishment, and deterrence—adequately supported the sentence and the denial of reconsideration.
Preservation and Forfeiture
The Court declined to address several additional arguments because they were not preserved in the trial court. These included challenges to reliance on prison disciplinary infractions (as “uncharged” bad acts) and an episode-based concurrency claim. The opinion is a cautionary tale about the need to make timely, specific objections to PSI content and to clearly present concurrency theories at sentencing and in any reconsideration motion.

Impact and Practical Implications

Although nonprecedential, this entry order harmonizes with and reinforces Vermont’s published case law on sentence reconsideration. Its practical effects are clear:

Narrow Reconsideration: Litigants should not expect a second full sentencing hearing. Reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the same mitigating evidence or ask the court to reweigh the same factors. New, legally material information tied to the original sentencing calculus may be important, but post-incarceration events are generally out of scope.
Hearings Are Discretionary: A well-developed sentencing record reduces the likelihood a trial court will find a hearing necessary on reconsideration. Counsel seeking a hearing should explain why live testimony or new evidence is essential to show the original sentence was “unwise or unjust” on the original record.
COVID-19 Conditions: The opinion confirms that pandemic-era incarceration conditions are not a mandatory sentencing factor under § 7030(a). While courts may consider such conditions, a failure to make express findings on them will not, by itself, establish error.
Preservation Matters: Challenges to PSI content (such as prison disciplinary records), concurrency theories premised on a single episode, or claims about improper reliance on uncharged conduct must be raised at sentencing or in the reconsideration motion with specificity. Absent preservation, appellate review will be foreclosed.
Weight-of-Evidence Arguments Are Weak Vehicles: Contending that a trial court gave “too much” or “too little” weight to particular items (e.g., a defense expert report) typically will not carry a reconsideration motion unless the argument demonstrates that the sentence, in light of all original factors, was truly “unwise or unjust.”
Aggregated Maximums: The defendant’s argument that the aggregate maximum should not exceed the maximum for the single most serious offense found no traction. Where the offenses reflect discrete harms or aggravated circumstances—in particular, when an assault is intertwined with obstruction and a separate domestic assault—consecutive terms are well within a court’s discretion when supported by the nature and circumstances findings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sentence Reconsideration: A post-sentencing mechanism allowing the sentencing judge to reflect on whether the original sentence was “unwise or unjust” based on the factors relevant at the time of sentencing. It is a limited remedy, not a do-over of the entire sentencing process or a forum to present post-incarceration developments.
Abuse of Discretion: A deferential appellate standard. The Supreme Court will reverse only if the trial court withheld discretion or based its decision on untenable or unreasonable grounds. Mere disagreement with the trial court’s weighing of factors is not enough.
PSI (Presentence Investigation) Report: A report prepared for sentencing that includes criminal history, institutional behavior (including disciplinary reports), and other background. It informs the court’s assessment of risk, rehabilitation prospects, and appropriate sanctions.
Disciplinary Reports (DRs): Institutional write-ups for rule violations (e.g., disruptive conduct, fighting, threatening). While not criminal convictions, they can be used at sentencing insofar as they inform risk and behavior, especially if included in an undisputed PSI.
Consecutive vs. Concurrent Sentences: Concurrent sentences run at the same time; consecutive sentences run back-to-back. Courts may impose consecutive terms to reflect multiple harms, different victims, or aggravating circumstances, as long as statutory limits are respected and the sentencing rationale is articulated.
13 V.S.A. § 7030(a): Vermont’s statute identifying factors relevant to sentencing. Courts may consider other factors too, but they are not required to expressly address each potential factor, especially those not enumerated in the statute (e.g., pandemic conditions).
Nonprecedential Entry Order: A three-justice panel decision in Vermont designated as nonprecedential. Such decisions do not bind future courts but can be persuasive, particularly when consistent with published precedent.
Preservation: The requirement that issues be raised and litigated in the trial court to be reviewable on appeal. Arguments not preserved below are generally not considered by the appellate court.

Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court’s entry order in State v. Taylor reaffirms the narrow function of sentence reconsideration: a constrained, discretionary look back to test whether the original sentence was “unwise or unjust,” not an invitation to reweigh the same evidence or to demand a new hearing. The Court clarified that sentencing judges are not required to issue COVID-specific findings and may deny reconsideration motions without evidentiary hearings where the sentencing record is already robust and the motion raises no new, decisive grounds.

Equally important are the preservation lessons. Challenges to PSI contents, reliance on prison disciplinary infractions, and concurrency theories must be raised squarely in the trial court. Absent preservation, appellate review will be unavailable.

While nonprecedential, Taylor tracks published Vermont authority (King, Stearns, Ray, Oscarson, Sole) and underscores a durable principle in Vermont sentencing law: deference to the sentencing judge’s informed discretion, so long as the sentencing rationale is articulated and grounded in the nature and circumstances of the offenses and the statutory goals. For litigants, the message is practical and clear—build a thorough sentencing record, preserve specific objections, and reserve reconsideration for showing why, on the original factors, the sentence is truly unwise or unjust.