State v. Kuncik, 141 Conn. App. 288

Defendant Mark P. Kuncik was stopped by state police on Route 8 in Watertown in the pre-dawn hours of Aug. 21, 2009; he was driving with a suspended license and speeding (93 mph) and became irate and noncompliant, prompting backup and the officer drawing a gun.
Defendant was removed from the vehicle and arrested after refusing to perform field sobriety tests.
Charges included interfering with a police officer (53a-167a(a)), driving with a suspended license (14-215(a)), reckless driving (14-222(a)), and DUI-related charges (14-227a(a)(1)); DUI charge was later resolved as not guilty.
Throughout pretrial and trial, defendant repeatedly elected to proceed as a self-represented party with standby counsel; jury trial occurred March 28–29, 2011; verdicts: guilty on three counts, not guilty on DUI.
Defendant challenged the court’s decision to permit self-representation as an indicator of incompetence; he sought supervisory remand for a competency hearing; the court and appellate analysis concluded supervisory intervention was not warranted and affirmed the judgments.
The court acknowledged Connor/Edwards standards but held the circumstances did not present the rare instance for supervisory intervention; the judgments were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether self-representation was improper given alleged incompetence.	Kuncik argues incompetence; sought remand for competency hearing.	Argues Connor/Edwards heightened standard requires competency assessment.	No abuse; supervisory powers not invoked; judgments affirmed.

State v. Connor, 292 Conn. 483 (2009) (establishes heightened competency standard for self‑representation under Connor/Edwards)
Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (permits different competency standard for self-representation)
State v. Elson, 125 Conn. App. 328 (2010) (recognizes supervisory review for unpreserved claims)
Iacurci v. Sax, 139 Conn. App. 386 (2012) (presumption court knows and correctly applies the law)