The Vermont Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of Peter Hirzel, who was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault. The court's decision, issued on June 12, 2026, affects Hirzel, the victims, and the broader legal landscape regarding plea agreements and sentencing procedures.
Hirzel was sentenced to a total of ten years to life, with seven years to serve for the first conviction and a concurrent ten-to-twenty-year sentence for the second conviction. This ruling came after Hirzel appealed his sentence, arguing that the court had made several errors during the sentencing process.
The case began when Hirzel pleaded guilty in February 2025 to charges of sexual assault without consent and sexual assault against a minor. The plea agreement included a split-to-serve sentence, which allowed for a portion of the sentence to be served in jail while the rest was suspended. During the sentencing hearing, the court heard victim-impact statements from the victim and her family, which Hirzel contested.
Hirzel's appeal raised concerns about the court's handling of the plea agreement, the consideration of victim-impact statements, and the refusal to credit him for time spent under a restrictive curfew while awaiting trial. The court ruled that it found no error in the sentencing process, affirming Hirzel's sentence.
In its ruling, the Vermont Supreme Court addressed the plea agreement's acceptance. The court stated, "Because we find no error, we affirm." This indicates that the court believed the trial court had appropriately deferred its decision on the plea agreement, adhering to the legal requirements set forth in Vermont's rules of criminal procedure.
Additionally, the court examined the victim-impact statements presented during the sentencing hearing. Hirzel argued that the court improperly considered information that was not part of the official record. However, the court clarified that it did not rely on any allegations beyond the scope of the case, focusing solely on the impact of the crime on the victim and her family.
Regarding the time Hirzel spent under a restrictive curfew, the court ruled that it could not credit him for that time. The court referenced previous rulings that established a clear distinction between being "in custody" and being under conditions of release, such as a curfew. The court noted that "to allow sentencing credit for time when no one is minding the store is unfair to those who truly are in custody."
The court's decision has significant implications for future cases involving plea agreements and victim-impact statements. It reinforces the notion that trial courts have considerable discretion in sentencing and can rely on victim statements as long as they are not considered as evidence of other allegations. This ruling may also influence how courts handle similar cases in the future, particularly regarding the treatment of curfews and other conditions of release.
Looking ahead, Hirzel's legal team may consider further options for appeal. However, the Vermont Supreme Court's affirmation of the lower court's decision suggests that the path forward may be challenging. There are no related cases currently pending that would directly impact this ruling.