134 Conn. App. 595
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant pled guilty on December 12, 2000 to sexual assault in the second degree under Alford and to employing a minor in an obscene performance.
- Plea was taken after an extensive canvass in which the court confirmed understanding of rights and consequences.
- On January 29, 2001, defendant moved to vacate the plea on a claim of potential incompetence.
- The court held a competency hearing; psychiatrist Selig testified defendant was not competent to plead.
- The court rejected Selig’s testimony and determined the defendant was competent to plead; motion to withdraw was denied.
- On appeal, defendant argues involuntariness and noncompliance with Practice Book § 39-19; court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency at plea time | Ducharme lacked present ability to consult and understand | He was not competent to enter the plea | Competency affirmed; trial court not abused |
| Knowing and voluntary plea under § 39-19 | Record satisfied Boykin minima and canvass sufficed | Court failed to address rights under Boykin sufficiently; unpreserved claim | Golding claim rejected; no constitutional violation; plea valid |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Connor, 292 Conn. 483 (2009) (knowing and voluntary plea standard; understanding consequences)
- State v. DesLaurier, 230 Conn. 572 (1994) (abuse of discretion in competency determinations)
- State v. Hernandez, 254 Conn. 659 (2000) (standard for competency; deference to trial court findings)
- State v. Johnson, 253 Conn. 1 (2000) (recording of demeanor and canvass; defer to trial court)
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) (competence to plead guilty equals competence to stand trial)
- State v. Mordasky, 84 Conn.App. 436 (2004) (mental illness not determinative; focus on present ability to consult and understand)
- State v. Suggs, 194 Conn. 223 (1984) (right to question vs confront; canvass language acceptable)
- State v. Lugo, 61 Conn. App. 855 (2001) (Boykin minima; exact wording not constitutionally mandatory)
- State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412 (1986) (constitutional minima not exhaustive; compliance not strictly literal)
- State v. Williams, 60 Conn. App. 575 (2000) (precise §39-19/§39-20 compliance not constitutionally required)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (Alford plea explained)