WHITE RIVER JUNCTION — A South Royalton man who pleaded guilty last year to shooting and killing his estranged wife in front of her nephew and brother told a court that he didn’t understand his plea agreement at the time and had lied to the judge about it.

During a hearing to withdraw his guilty plea argued in Windsor Superior Court last Friday, Frank Sanville said he “didn’t know what this (was) about” when he was presented a copy of the plea agreement with his signature on it by the state prosecutor, according to an audio recording of the proceeding.

Sanville, 76, pleaded guilty in 2022 to second-degree murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in the shooting death of Wanda Sanville at her home in South Royalton in 2018. Originally charged with first-degree murder, Sanville’s plea agreement on the lesser charges called for a prison sentence of up to 24 years, pending formal sentencing by the court.

But Sanville said that he did not learn the specific terms of the plea agreement until he returned to prison after he had affirmed in court under questioning by the judge a few hours earlier that he accepted and understood the deal his defense attorney and prosecutors hammered out.

Asked by Travis Weaver, the Windsor County deputy state’s attorney, if he had talked with his attorney before he signed the plea agreement, Sanville responded, “I did talk with him, but he didn’t tell me what that (was) all about.”

Sanville said he believed that he had agreed to a sentence of “four and out in two 20,” meaning four years being the minimum for the aggravated assault charge, according to his motion to withdraw the plea. That would also roughly equal the amount of time that Sanville was held in pre-trial detention between his arrest and 2022 plea deal.

Weaver tried to elicit clarification from Sanville as to what he meant by “two 20,” with Sanville in one reply seeming to mean he’d thought it meant be out in the year 2020 and in another reply that 20 represented the upper limit years of his sentence, according to court audio.

“I can’t talk good,” said Sanville, at one point during the hearing.

Sanville said he had never intended to take a plea deal, and he was not truthful when he acknowledged before the judge at his plea hearing last year that he understood and accepted the terms.

“Anything you were lying to the judge about that you recall?” Weaver asked.

“About the deal,” Sanville answered.

“You were lying about the deal?” an incredulous Weaver shot back.

“Yeah, but he told me what was the best deal to make,” Sanville said, referring to his attorney.

After 27 seconds of stone-cold silence, Weaver said, “I have no further questions, your honor.”

Asked by the judge if she wanted to follow with her client on that exchange, defense attorney Hannah Calisse said, “No, your honor.”

In pre-hearing filings, Sanville said he based his decision to request withdrawing his plea on discussion he had with a “jailhouse lawyer.” The term “jailhouse lawyer” is slang for a non-attorney — typically another inmate — who dispenses legal advice to peers in prison.

At Friday’s hearing, however, neither Sanville nor Calisse mentioned Sanville’s purported conversation with the jailhouse lawyer.

Robert Sussman, Sanville’s defense attorney who was called by the state to testify but was not representing Sanville at the hearing because he had negotiated the plea agreement on behalf of his client, declined to detail conversations he had with Sanville, citing attorney/client privilege.

Although Sussman acknowledged, under questioning by Weaver, that he had explained to his client the definition of a contested sentence, where prosecutors and defense lawyers argue the length of an incarceration before the court pronounces sentence. But he nonetheless would not go into the specifics of his conversation with Sanville, other than providing a “generic statement” as to how he approaches such matters with clients.

Calisse, who was representing Sanville at the hearing, said that it is very likely her client — who has only a middle school education and can neither read nor write — was overwhelmed and confused by the information that was presented and reviewed during his plea hearing.

“That’s something that should have been explained in more depth and separated out,” she argued.

“The consequences to Sanville from entering into a plea that he didn’t fully understand the terms of, are substantial,” Calisse said. “He may face the rest of his life in prison.

“The court must exercise liberally in favor of withdrawal of plea,” she added, citing what she said are state court rules designed to protect a defendant’s rights, which “outweighs prejudice to the state.”

Weaver called Sanville’s contention that he did not understand the plea deal in which he entered as “not credible,” pointing out the court record — both filings and oral statements made in court — demonstrate he understood the plea deal.

Weaver noted that 10 months had elapsed from the plea hearing in July 2022 to when Sanville filed his petition to withdraw his plea in May 2023.

“The more likely explanation for what happened is as this case approached sentencing, Sanville got cold feet and the easiest thing for him to say is, ‘Oh, I didn’t understand it,’ ” Weaver said. “But he can’t point to any corroborating facts that would suggest he did not understand these terms.”

The judge said she would take the attorneys’ arguments “under advisement” and issue a written opinion at a future date.

Contact John Lippman at jlippman@vnews.com.