140 Conn. App. 848
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendant Esteban Q. Hemaiz was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree assault and carrying a dangerous weapon.
- He moved to replace trial counsel on the eve of or during jury selection, alleging lack of communication and other issues.
- The court conducted hearings, including reviewing a letter from the defendant, and asked both sides about the attorney's conduct and preparation.
- The court determined the defendant sought to hire new counsel, not to proceed pro se, and applied the exceptional circumstances standard from Drakeford.
- The court found no exceptional circumstances and denied the substitution; defense counsel remained appointed, and trial proceeded.
- The jury found guilt on the charged and included offenses; on sentencing, the defendant received eight years’ imprisonment; the conviction was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of substitution of counsel was an abuse of discretion | State contends no exceptional circumstances; court properly exercised discretion | Hemaiz argues exceptional circumstances existed requiring new counsel | No abuse; exceptional circumstances did not exist; denial affirmed |
| Whether the request for new counsel was timely | Requests near trial were not timely for substitution under Drakeford | Requests were legitimate attempts to secure effective representation | Not timely; proper discretion to deny |
| Whether the court adequately inquired into the defendant’s complaints | Court thoroughly questioned defendant and attorneys; adequate inquiry | Defendant had concerns about communication and safety that required replacement | Inquiry was adequate; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Drakeford, 202 Conn. 75 (Conn. 1987) (exceptional circumstances required to discharge counsel on eve of trial)
- State v. Williams, 102 Conn. App. 168 (Conn. App. 2007) (factors: timeliness, inquiry, and attorney/client conflict in substitution of counsel)
- Stuart v. Stuart, 297 Conn. 26 (Conn. 2010) (Supreme Court precedent binds appellate review of trial court rulings)