320 Conn. 842
Conn.2016Background
- Defendant Anthony D. moved orally at sentencing to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting concerns about his counsel’s representation (ineffective assistance).
- The trial court summarily denied the oral motion during the sentencing colloquy, relying on its recollection of a thorough plea canvass and stating such ineffectiveness claims belonged in a habeas proceeding.
- Defense counsel asked the court to appoint new counsel to investigate; the court declined and did not permit the defendant to articulate specific factual allegations supporting the ineffectiveness claim.
- The Appellate Court recounted the colloquy and the trial court’s later written memorandum (which recognized ineffective assistance as a proper ground but emphasized the adequacy of the plea canvass).
- Chief Justice Rogers (dissenting), joined by two justices, concluded the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion without allowing the defendant to present factual allegations or appointing/allowing new counsel to explore the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may summarily deny a pre-sentencing motion to withdraw a plea based on ineffective assistance without allowing the defendant to present factual allegations | Trial court/State: Plea canvass was adequate; no defect shown on record; habeas is proper forum for ineffectiveness claims | Anthony: Practice Book §39‑27(4) allows withdrawal pre‑sentence for ineffective assistance; defendant must be allowed to allege facts | Dissent: Court should have permitted factual allegations and further inquiry; remand for further inquiry recommended |
| Whether the plea canvass alone can conclusively refute an ineffectiveness claim | State: Adequate canvass and defendant’s statements can conclusively refute claim | Defendant: Ineffectiveness often concerns out‑of‑court matters not shown on canvass; canvass alone insufficient | Dissent: Canvass may be probative but cannot substitute for allowing defendant to present out‑of‑court factual allegations |
| Whether the trial court erred by advising habeas instead of considering withdrawal under Practice Book rules | State: Habeas is available alternative; trial court’s view that habeas is appropriate | Defendant: Rule permits pre‑sentence motion under §39‑27(4); not required to wait for habeas | Dissent: Trial court misstated procedure and improperly foreclosed §39‑27 relief |
| Whether appointment or allowance of new counsel was warranted to investigate the ineffectiveness claim | State: Not necessary where record refutes claim | Defendant: Appointment may be necessary to investigate out‑of‑court claims and present allegations | Dissent: Trial court should have considered appointing or allowing new counsel to develop the claim if factual allegations existed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sutton, 95 Conn. App. 139 (Conn. App. 2006) (allows pre‑sentence withdrawal under Practice Book §39‑27 when plea results from ineffective assistance)
- State v. Salas, 92 Conn. App. 541 (Conn. App. 2005) (trial court need not hold evidentiary hearing if record conclusively refutes motion; court may disregard conclusory allegations)
- State v. Crenshaw, 210 Conn. 304 (Conn. 1989) (guilty plea withdrawal is within court's sound discretion; reversal only for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Morant, 13 Conn. App. 378 (Conn. App. 1988) (trial court erred by denying defendant opportunity to present ineffective assistance allegations and by misstating procedure)
- State v. Torres, 182 Conn. 176 (Conn. 1980) (if allegations, assumed true, furnish basis under §39‑27 and are not conclusively refuted by record, an evidentiary hearing is required)
- State v. Barnwell, 102 Conn. App. 255 (Conn. App. 2007) (illustrates appointment or substitution of counsel and permitting defendant to present statement when ineffectiveness claim asserted)