[B]ENNINGTON — A former Bennington man serving a 10-years-to-life sentence for sexual assault, aggravated domestic assault and voyeurism has lost an appeal of his conviction and the terms of sentencing.
A panel of the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed this month that Roberto Miranda, 34, who pleaded guilty to the charges in July, understood the sentencing parameters when he changed his plea to guilty, and that Superior Court Judge David Howard did not exceed the court’s discretion in imposing a 10-year minimum sentence.
According to the decision, Miranda was convicted of a February 2015 assault on a woman with whom he had once had a relationship. She alleged that while they were living in the same dwelling but no longer in a relationship, he “came into her room, restrained her, and forcibly had sex with her.”
The court notes that affidavits in support of the charges state, “The complainant recorded the incident on her cell phone and she can be heard several times telling the defendant to stop, get away, leave her alone, get off, and that he is hurting her.”
She also alleged that two years earlier, Miranda “twisted a towel around her neck and choked her, and that he engaged in other nonconsensual acts.”
The voyeurism charges were based on videos of the woman that Miranda had made from covert cameras in her bathroom.
He originally was charged with two counts of sexual assault, one count of aggravated sexual assault, one count of second-degree unlawful restraint, one count of domestic assault, one count of aggravated domestic assault, two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct, and 15 counts of voyeurism.
Miranda later entered into a plea agreement with the state to admit one count of sexual assault, one count of first-degree aggravated domestic assault and seven counts of voyeurism, and the prosecution agreed to drop the remaining charges.
The Supreme Court decision notes that the written plea agreement said the sentence was contested and further explained, “Parties agree that sentence shall include no less than 3 years of incarceration. Parties may otherwise argue for any sentence.”
After a later hearing, Miranda was sentenced by Howard to 10 years to life for sexual assault and to concurrent shorter terms on the other charges.
In his appeal, Miranda argued that “his plea was not entered voluntarily because he did not understand the terms of the plea agreement” and that the judge’s description of the plea agreement was unclear.
However, the Supreme Court concluded that “the written agreement, signed by both the defendant and his attorney, explained that the sentence was contested, that the parties had agreed on a minimum sentence of no less than three years, and that the parties were free to argue for any sentence. Further, the statements at the change-of-plea hearing demonstrate that defendant understood the terms of the plea.”
The appeal decision also says, “In addition, at the sentencing hearing, when the state argued for a fifteen-year minimum, defendant made no objection on the ground that this was outside of the terms of his plea agreement.”
Miranda also argued that “the (trial) court abused its discretion in imposing” the sentence because “the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors.”
The Supreme Court panel determined that the trial court “based its decision on legitimate considerations and did not abuse its discretion. The court explained that the sentence included a strong punitive portion, stating that defendant’s crimes were particularly serious offenses, and although defendant had expressed some remorse, the court was not convinced that defendant fully understood the consequences of his actions.”
The appeal was considered by a three-justice panel of Associate Justices Marilyn Skoglund and Beth Robinson and Superior Court Judge Karen Carroll, who was assigned to hear the appeal.
