207 Conn.App. 56
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Defendant Glen S. pleaded guilty (2008) to sexual assault (spousal/cohabitant), was sentenced with execution suspended and placed on lengthy probation with conditions including sex‑offender treatment and registration.
- During probation he missed appointments, failed treatment, provided a false registry address, and was arrested in Norwalk—leading to a violation of probation proceeding in Waterbury.
- At arraignment (Sept. 12, 2018) the defendant clearly and repeatedly requested to represent himself; the court canvassed him and permitted self‑representation.
- At the evidentiary hearing (Oct. 30, 2018) the defendant was argumentative, had outbursts, and struggled with cross‑examination; the court appointed standby counsel, ordered §54‑56d competency evaluations, and the defendant refused to cooperate with evaluators.
- The court ultimately found him incompetent to continue pro se, appointed standby counsel as counsel of record, found a probation violation, opened the original sentence, imposed incarceration, and the defendant appealed raising Faretta, Connor, supervisory‑canvass, ineffective assistance, and conflict‑of‑interest claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Faretta canvass (waiver of counsel) | State: Court conducted a sufficient canvass under Practice Book §44‑3 and Faretta; defendant knew rights, risks, and exposure for VOP. | Glen S.: Canvass was inadequate—court failed to probe competency and failed to advise total maximum exposure (including Norwalk misdemeanors). | Affirmed: canvass adequate; waiver knowing, intelligent, voluntary; no need to advise on misdemeanor exposure not before court. |
| Entitlement to new trial under State v. Connor (competency to self‑represent) | State: Defendant failed to rebut statutory presumption of competency; refusal to cooperate with evaluators and poor cross‑examination reflect lack of legal skill, not mental incompetence. | Glen S.: Displayed noticeable impairment at hearing (couldn’t formulate proper questions) so court should have sua sponte found him incompetent earlier. | Affirmed: insufficient evidence of a significant mental impairment; failure to cooperate with evaluations preserved presumption of competency; poor courtroom performance alone is insufficient. |
| Whether trial court must canvass about waiver of right to testify (request for supervisory rule) | State: Paradise controls—no constitutional requirement to canvass absent a defendant’s assertion of desire to testify; supervisory change unnecessary. | Glen S.: Court should be required (by supervisory rule) to canvass all defendants about right to testify even if defendant doesn't request it. | Denied: court declines to exercise supervisory authority; Paradise controls—no constitutional duty to canvass where defendant did not assert desire to testify. |
| Sixth Amendment conflict‑free counsel claim | State: Record inadequate to show an actual conflict affecting performance. | Glen S.: Counsel’s motion referencing a threat by defendant constituted an actual conflict and impaired counsel’s loyalty/performance. | Affirmed: one sentence about a threat in a guardian‑ad‑litem motion was insufficient to show an actual conflict or adverse effect on counsel’s performance. |
| Review of ineffective assistance on direct appeal | State: Ineffective‑assistance claims usually require evidentiary development (habeas/new trial), not direct appeal. | Glen S.: Counsel ineffective (various claims including sentencing recommendation) and should be reviewed now. | Denied: record inadequate for direct review; ineffective assistance claims are generally pursued via habeas or petition for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (criminal defendant has constitutional right to self‑representation; waiver of counsel must be knowing and intelligent)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Connor, 292 Conn. 483 (2009) (trial court must determine whether a defendant is competent to conduct trial proceedings pro se in addition to competence to stand trial)
- State v. Paradise, 213 Conn. 388 (1990) (trial courts not constitutionally required to canvass about waiver of right to testify when defendant does not assert a wish to testify)
- State v. Joseph A., 336 Conn. 247 (2020) (standard of review and Practice Book §44‑3 canvass analysis for Faretta waivers)
- State v. Campbell, 328 Conn. 444 (2018) (statutory presumption of competency under §54‑56d)
- State v. Wolff, 237 Conn. 633 (1996) (lack of legal competence or skill does not by itself establish incompetence to stand trial)