State v. Francis
140 A.3d 927
| Conn. | 2016Background
- Ernest Francis, convicted of murder in 1992, filed multiple motions to correct an illegal sentence; his third motion (2010) led to the dispute here.
- Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-296(a) and this court’s decision in State v. Casiano, indigent defendants are entitled to appointed counsel to determine whether a "sound basis" exists to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and counsel to pursue it if a basis exists.
- At a 2010 hearing Judge Gold asked the Public Defender’s Office to review Francis’ third motion; Assistant Public Defender R. Bruce Lorenzen reviewed files and told the court he would not accept appointment because the claim lacked sufficient merit.
- Lorenzen did not formally meet with Francis as his appointed counsel to perform the Casiano "sound-basis" review, nor did he articulate detailed reasons on the record; the court accepted Lorenzen’s representation and denied appointment.
- The Appellate Court held that Anders v. California’s procedure (when counsel deems an appeal frivolous) should apply before denying appointment under Casiano; it reversed and remanded. The State appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court held Anders is not required for § 51-296(a) appointments on motions to correct, but the trial court nonetheless erred by failing to appoint counsel to perform the Casiano sound-basis review and that error was harmful; the case was remanded for appointment of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Francis' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anders procedure is required before denying appointment under § 51-296(a) for a motion to correct sentence | Anders not required; motions to correct are narrower and Anders would cause delay and burdens | Anders protections apply because Casiano equated motions to correct with appeals for right-to-counsel purposes | Anders not strictly required for motions to correct; states have discretion in postconviction procedures |
| Whether trial court complied with Casiano when it denied appointment here | Trial court’s reliance on Lorenzen’s statement was sufficient; any defect was harmless because the motion was later denied on the merits | Trial court failed to appoint counsel to perform the required sound-basis review and counsel did not advocate for Francis | Trial court erred: counsel must be appointed to determine sound basis; error was harmful and not harmless here |
| What process appointed counsel must follow when determining "sound basis" | No Anders-level formalism required; counsel must consult defendant, review record and law, then report reasons orally or in writing | Counsel must follow Anders-like procedure including a brief identifying possible supporting issues | Counsel must consult with defendant and examine record/law; if counsel finds no sound basis, counsel must explain reasons to court and defendant (oral or written); court may permit withdrawal if persuaded |
| Whether denial of counsel in this context is structural or subject to harmless-error analysis | State: any defect harmless if motion later denied on the merits | Francis: denial of counsel prejudiced his ability to present claims | Court did not decide whether structural; found denial harmful on these facts and remanded for appointment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Casiano, 282 Conn. 614 (Conn. 2007) (statutory right to counsel under § 51-296(a) extends to motions to correct to determine whether a sound basis exists)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures required when appellate counsel seeks to withdraw after deeming appeal frivolous)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1987) (no constitutional right to counsel in postconviction proceedings; Anders not automatically required in state-created postconviction contexts)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due process procedures are flexible and depend on the situation)
- Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (U.S. 2009) (prophylactic rules must be weighed for costs and benefits)
- State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147 (Conn. 2007) (limits on claims properly reviewable on motion to correct illegal sentence)