135 Conn. App. 302
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Five Connecticut cases involving Lameirao: Fairfield risk-of-injury to a child case; Bridgeport case; two DUI probation cases; Bridgeport 911-tape discovery dispute and plea negotiations.
- Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempt to commit risk of injury to a child (Alford), one count risk of injury to a child (subpart 1), one DUI count, one suspended-license DUI, and admitted to two probation counts.
- Plea colloquy occurred January 27, 2010, with court explaining rights, elements, and penalties; defendant indicated understanding and entered Alford plea.
- State set forth the facts for each case; defendant’s counsel Silverstein argued on his behalf; court explained plea terms: 20-year total with suspension after 10, probation, and sex-offender registration.
- Defendant sought to withdraw pleas via Practice Book §§ 39-26 to 39-27; after presentence investigation and sentencing, the court denied withdrawal; defendant appealed alleging lack of personal address, implicit acceptance, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Judgments affirmed: pleas and admissions upheld; defendant sentenced consistent with plea agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly addressed the defendant personally under Practice Book §§ 39-19/39-20 | State maintains canvass satisfied personal addressing | Lack of explicit personal inquiry | No reversible error; canvass sufficient |
| Whether the court properly accepted the pleas (implicit vs explicit acceptance) | Implicit acceptance supported by record | Acceptance required explicit words | Implicit acceptance proper; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether pleas were intelligent and voluntary (ineffective assistance claim) | Counsel adequately explained and advised | Counsel failed to investigate and misadvised | No reversible error; ineffective assistance not shown |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective in advising and investigating | Denied; court credibly found adequate investigation | ||
| Whether the court correctly denied withdrawal under 39-27 based on the record | Record shows voluntary pleas under plea agreement | Withdrawal warranted due to lack of informed and voluntary pleas | Court did not abuse discretion; withdrawal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pena, 16 Conn.App. 518 (1988) (implicit finding of guilty supported by court actions despite no explicit words of conviction)
- State v. Morales, 121 Conn.App. 767 (2010) (ineffective assistance standard for guilty pleas; separate weighing of performance and prejudice)
- State v. Wright, 114 Conn.App. 448 (2009) (no talismanic phrases required for acceptance of plea)
- United States v. Morales-Sosa, 191 F.3d 586 (1999) (federal basis for implicit acceptance of plea)