State v. Francis
2014 Conn. App. LEXIS 92
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Ernest Francis, pro se, filed a third motion to correct an illegal sentence challenging his 1992 murder sentence (50 years); the trial court denied appointment of counsel after a public defender reviewed the motion and deemed it lacking merit.
- At the September 8, 2010 hearing, the public defender (Lorenzen) told the court he had reviewed the motion and concluded it did not warrant appointment; the court accepted that conclusion and refused to require the public defender to explain his reasons.
- Francis objected, invoking Anders and Connecticut decisions, and sought articulation of the public defender’s review; the court denied and later (June 7, 2011) denied the motion to correct on the merits after Francis proceeded pro se.
- On appeal Francis argued (1) the sentencing judge relied on inaccurate facts and unfair inferences, (2) the sentencing court made incorrect assumptions about his mental state, and (3) the trial court erred procedurally by refusing to appoint counsel and by applying an Anders-type determination without complying with Anders safeguards.
- The Appellate Court limited its review to the procedural issue whether the court violated Francis’s statutory right to appointed counsel under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-296(a) (as construed in State v. Casiano) by failing to follow Anders-like procedures when the public defender indicated the motion was frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Francis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether challenge to denial of appointment of counsel on motion to correct is reviewable on appeal | Denial was properly reviewable on appeal (contested procedural posture); alternatively argued appointment denial was discretionary | Denial of appointment may be reviewed on appeal; Practice Book §63-7 doesn't bar appeal of trial-court appointment decisions | The court may review the trial court’s denial on appeal (Scott precedent relied upon); appeal is proper |
| Whether Anders procedures apply when a public defender reviews a motion to correct and reports it lacks merit | Casiano’s minimal procedure suffices: public defender may review and report lack of merit without fuller Anders formalities | Anders requirements apply to motions to correct because Casiano equates motions to correct with appeals for right-to-counsel purposes; thus counsel must be appointed to perform a conscientious review, prepare a brief identifying arguable issues, and the court must independently review the record before denying counsel | Anders protections extend to §51-296(a) motions to correct; Anders-like procedures must be followed before denying appointment |
| Whether the trial court complied with required Anders/Casiano procedure in this case | Court relied appropriately on public defender’s representation; no further procedure required | Court failed to appoint the public defender as counsel to advocate for Francis, public defender did not explain or file a brief, and the court failed to perform an independent review | The trial court violated Anders/Casiano: public defender’s cursory, unexplained conclusion and court’s adoption without independent review were insufficient |
| Remedy: whether denial requires reversal/remand | Denial was reasonable; if so, no new appointment/remand necessary | Request remand for full Anders/Casiano procedure (appointment, conscientious review, counsel brief, court independent review) | Judgment reversed; remanded for new hearing on appointment of counsel and on the motion to correct consistent with Anders/Casiano |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Casiano, 282 Conn. 614 (Conn. 2007) (extends §51-296(a) right to appointed counsel to motions to correct and recognizes frivolous-claims exception)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires counsel who deems appeal frivolous to advise court, provide brief citing anything that might support appeal, and requires court to review record independently)
- State v. Pascucci, 161 Conn. 382 (Conn. 1971) (Connecticut enforcement of Anders duties for appointed appellate counsel)
- Franko v. Bronson, 19 Conn. App. 686 (Conn. App. 1989) (applies Anders procedures to statutory right-to-counsel habeas appeals under §51-296)
- Vazquez v. Commissioner of Correction, 88 Conn. App. 226 (Conn. App. 2005) (describes court’s obligation to review Anders briefs and transcripts and to make findings before denying new counsel)
- Lorthe v. Commissioner of Correction, 103 Conn. App. 662 (Conn. App. 2007) (Anders requires court review of record and pleadings when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Gipson v. Commissioner of Correction, 257 Conn. 632 (Conn. 2001) (§51-296(a) supplies statutory right to counsel on appeals, including postconviction appeals)