State v. Connor, 138 A.3d 265

Background

Jeffrey T. Connor, convicted after trial for crimes related to his ex-wife’s abduction, had a history of a debilitating stroke and episodes raising competency concerns; he intermittently refused evaluation and was intermittently unresponsive in court.
Trial Judge Espinosa found Connor competent to represent himself and allowed self-representation with standby counsel; a jury convicted him on most counts.
On direct appeal this court (State v. Connor) adopted a more demanding standard for competency to self-represent (under supervisory authority following Indiana v. Edwards) and remanded for a retrospective determination whether Connor could "carry out the basic tasks" of self-representation despite mental impairments.
Judge Espinosa began remand proceedings but was elevated to the Appellate Court; Judge Schuman then conducted remand hearings relying on trial transcripts, Judge Espinosa’s affidavit, and medical records (admitted over objection). Connor and defense counsel did not object to Judge Schuman presiding or to the remand procedure and did not call Judge Espinosa to testify.
Judge Schuman concluded Connor had been competent to self-represent. The Appellate Court reversed, holding the remand hearing was not a "meaningful" nunc pro tunc competency hearing and ordered a new trial. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held the Appellate Court decided the case on an issue (procedural adequacy of the remand hearing) not raised by the parties, raised that issue sua sponte without adequate notice or supplemental briefing, and thereby violated the Blumberg framework; it reversed and remanded for consideration of the defendant’s original claim.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Connor's Argument	Held
Did the Appellate Court properly decide that the remand hearing was procedurally flawed though the parties did not raise that issue?	Appellate Court raised the issue sua sponte in violation of Blumberg; the State lacked opportunity to be heard and was prejudiced.	The Appellate Court’s sua sponte consideration was permissible or otherwise harmless.	The Appellate Court erred: it raised an unpreserved issue without satisfying Blumberg (no adequate notice or supplemental briefing; unfair prejudice).
Were the Blumberg requirements (exceptional circumstances, opportunity to be heard, lack of unfair prejudice) satisfied for deciding an unpreserved issue?	No: opportunity to be heard was inadequate and State demonstrated colorable prejudice; burden shifted and defendant did not overcome it.	Argued Appellate Court’s questions at oral argument were sufficient and exceptional circumstances justified sua sponte review.	No: State was not afforded meaningful notice or supplemental briefing; State plausibly showed unfair prejudice (could have sought Judge Espinosa to preside under §51-197c(f)).
Did the Appellate Court properly evaluate Judge Schuman’s substantive competency determination under the appropriate standard?	(Implicit) Appellate Court substituted its own procedural threshold rather than reviewing the substantive ruling the parties contested.	Connor challenged the substantive sufficiency of evidence supporting competency, not the remand procedure itself.	Supreme Court: Appellate Court substituted an unpreserved procedural threshold inquiry for the substantive review raised by the parties—an abuse of discretion.
Remedy after Appellate Court’s procedural ruling?	State: reversal of Appellate Court and remand to consider defendant’s substantive claim.	Connor: new trial (as Appellate Court ordered).	Supreme Court: reverse Appellate Court and remand to consider the defendant’s originally raised claim.

Key Cases Cited

Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (States may adopt a higher standard for competency to self-represent than for competency to stand trial)
Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., 311 Conn. 123 (2014) (appellate courts generally should not decide unpreserved issues; exceptions require exceptional circumstances, opportunity to be heard, and no unfair prejudice)
State v. Connor, 292 Conn. 483 (2009) (this court adopted a supervisory Edwards-based test and remanded for a nunc pro tunc competency determination)
State v. Day, 233 Conn. 813 (1995) (prior rule treating competency to stand trial as sufficient for waiver of counsel)
State v. Dalzell, 282 Conn. 709 (2007) (if an appellate court addresses an unbriefed issue, it must request supplemental briefs or allow argument)
State v. Davis, 311 Conn. 468 (2014) (waiver threshold questions reviewed plenarily)