State v. Travis G. Cram

VERMONT SUPREME COURT Case Nos. 23-AP-065 &
109 State Street 23-AP-085
Montpelier VT 05609-0801
802-828-4774
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-
appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

SEPTEMBER TERM, 2023

State of Vermont v. Travis G. Cram* } APPEALED FROM:
} Superior Court, Addison Unit,
} Criminal Division
} CASE NOS. 300-8-19 Ancr & 21-CR-06717
Trial Judge: David R. Fenster

In the above-entitled causes, the Clerk will enter:

Defendant pled guilty to various crimes pursuant to a plea agreement and he appeals from
the trial court’s imposition of sentence. He argues that the trial court failed to give sufficient
weight to the fact that he took responsibility for his actions. We affirm.

The record indicates the following. In August 2019, defendant was charged with sexual
assault, two counts of attempting to lure a child, and disseminating indecent material to a minor
after he allegedly sexually assaulted his fourteen-year-old relative, sent her explicit text
messages, and attempted to arrange to meet her to engage in further sexual acts. Defendant
entered into a plea agreement. Defendant initially denied the factual basis for the sexual-assault
charge during the plea colloquy but eventually admitted to the conduct underlying the offense.
The court accepted the plea and ordered a presentence investigation report. At the sentencing
hearing in December 2020, however, the court rejected the plea and proposed sentence, noting
that defendant failed to accept responsibility and the victim objected to the proposed sentence.

While the case was pending, defendant was charged with three counts of violating his
conditions of release. In June 2022, he entered into a new plea agreement, which the court
accepted. Defendant pled guilty to sexual assault, one count of luring, and one count of violating
his conditions of release. At sentencing, the parties were allowed to argue for any sentence with
a floor of three years to life, split to serve three years, and a ceiling of six years to life. The
parties agreed on the sentences for luring and violation of conditions of release; they disagreed
on the sexual-assault sentence. The State requested a sentence of six years to life while
defendant sought a sentence of three years to life, split to serve three years. The court imposed a
global sentence of six years to life, straight to serve.

In reaching its conclusion, the court considered the factors set forth by statute, including
the nature and circumstances of the crime, defendant’s history and character, defendant’s family
circumstances and relationships, the impact any sentence may have on the defendant’s minor
children, the need for treatment, and the risk that defendant posed to himself, others, and the
community at large. See 13 V.S.A. § 7030(a). The court found that the victim was a family
member who trusted defendant. Defendant took advantage of that trust to sexually assault her
and his actions had a devastating effect on the victim and other family members. Defendant’s
acts were calculated, and he intended to engage in additional sexual acts with the victim. The
court recognized that defendant had taken some responsibility for his actions, which it
considered in his favor. On the other hand, defendant had violated his conditions of release
while the case was pending, and the violation involved access to individuals who were subject to
protection. Defendant had minor children, who would be affected by defendant’s sentence.
Defendant was in need of treatment, specifically, group-oriented evidence-based treatment for
individuals who have sexually offended. Defendant was assessed as presenting a moderate or
moderate-low risk to reoffend.

Considering the totality of the factors, the court imposed a sentence of six years to life,
straight to serve. The court expressed its concern about defendant’s failure to accept full
responsibility for his behavior, noting that defendant did not immediately accept responsibility
and denied responsibility in the initial psychosexual evaluation. Even in the most recent
psychosexual evaluation, the court continued, defendant did not take full responsibility. He also
blamed alcohol and drugs and his poor relationship with his wife for his actions. The court
determined that, to be successful, defendant would need to understand and accept what he did
every day as he moved forward and imposing a straight sentence would help accomplish that
goal. His release would be contingent upon his continuing to accept that responsibility and
engaging in treatment. With respect to the minimum sentence, the court referenced the factors
above, including that this was not an isolated incident, the victim was a family member who
trusted defendant, defendant refused to take full responsibility for his actions, and he violated his
conditions of release while the case was pending.

Defendant appealed in both dockets and the appeals were consolidated for our review.
Defendant argues that the court abused its discretion in imposing the maximum sentence allowed
under the plea agreement. He maintains that the court failed to give any mitigating consideration
to his acceptance of responsibility despite saying that this weighed in his favor.

Our review of the court’s decision is deferential. “Absent exceptional circumstances, we
will defer to the court’s judgment so long as the sentence is within the statutory limits and was
not based on improper or inaccurate information.” State v. Daley, 2006 VT 5, ¶ 6, 179 Vt. 589.

The court considered the statutory factors here and it did not base its decision on any
improper or inaccurate information. The court recognized that defendant had now accepted
some responsibility for his actions. It also found, however, that defendant initially denied
responsibility and he continued to blame other factors for his actions. Those findings are
supported by the record. The court was concerned by defendant’s failure to take full
responsibility for his actions, and it explained in detail how this information, along with other
factors, supported its sentencing decision. While defendant disagrees with the court’s
conclusion, we leave it to the trial court to assess the weight of the evidence. See State v.
Sullivan, 2018 VT 112, ¶¶ 6, 8, 208 Vt. 540 (recognizing that “[s]entencing is solely the function
of the trial judge” and that trial court has broad discretion in “fashioning an appropriate,
individualized sentence” (quotation omitted)). Defendant fails to show any abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.
2
BY THE COURT:

Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice

Karen R. Carroll, Associate Justice

3