State v. Johnson
2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 45
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Johnson was arrested April 12, 2010 and hired private counsel in July 2010.
- He filed pro se speedy trial motions in December 2010 and February 2011; counsel filed a speedy-trial motion February 28, 2011.
- Jury selection for March 7, 2011 was scheduled, with the judge explaining trial structure and that one count could be tried to the court if desired.
- During the March 7, 2011 hearing, Johnson discussed with counsel that he might not want counsel, and the court and counsel discussed whether to proceed; Johnson chose to proceed with the scheduled plan after confirmation.
- Johnson was tried and convicted on four counts, including carrying a pistol without a permit, interfering with an officer, and criminal possession of a firearm; he timely appealed claiming right to counsel of choice violations and failure to inquire.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding no violation of the right to counsel of choice and no abuse of discretion in not conducting an inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court violated the right to counsel of choice. | Johnson argues the court failed to inquire, violating his right to counsel of choice. | Johnson contends the court's inaction deprived him of chosen counsel and denied effective defense. | No constitutional violation found; court properly did not require inquiry. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by not conducting an inquiry. | Johnson argues failure to inquire was an abuse of discretion given counsel's remark. | Johnson's counsel indicated only a record-notation of indications of dissatisfaction; no substantial complaint warranted inquiry. | No abuse of discretion; court proceeded appropriately under the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Benitez v. United States, 521 F.3d 625 (6th Cir. 2008) (insufficient fit; whether change of status triggers inquiry depends on context)
- State v. Peeler, 265 Conn. 460 (Conn. 2003) (right to counsel of choice and need for fair opportunity to secure counsel)
- State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711 (Conn. 1993) (extent of inquiry into dissatisfaction with counsel governed by trial court discretion)
- McKee v. Harris, 649 F.2d 927 (2d Cir. 1981) (requires inquiry when there is a seemingly substantial complaint about counsel)