With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". these consequences as a direct result of his Vermont convictions. We conclude that the appellant is “in custody” for the purposes of 13 V.S.A. § 7131. III. As an alternative ground for dismissal, the trial court held that the doctrine of laches barred the appellant’s claim. This Court has never applied laches to either post-conviction relief or habeas petitions. This Court has previously addressed the merits of post-conviction relief attacks on an eighteen-year-old conviction, Magoon v. Smith, supra, 130 Vt. at 603-04, 298 A.2d at 821, and on a twenty-three-year-old conviction. In re Murray, 131 Vt. 4, 5, 298 A.2d 835, 836 (1972). Furthermore, 13 V.S.A. § 7131 specifically provides that a petition may be filed “at any time.” See In re McNair, — Mont. —, —, 615 P.2d 916, 917 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, we decline to apply the

A: holding that where defense of laches was not pleaded denial of equitable relief on grounds of laches was error
B: holding that laches bars relief where second mortgagee failed to seek relief for almost seven months after learning of sheriffs sale
C: holding that probation was custody and permitted jurisdiction under postconviction relief statute
D: holding that identical language in montana postconviction relief statute bars application of laches
D.