State v. Lynch, 193 Conn.App. 637

Background

Lynch entered a global Garvin plea on Oct. 7, 2016, pleading guilty to three counts of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (as a first offender) and other counts; the agreement provided for a fully suspended four‑year sentence and vacatur/nolle of certain charges contingent on compliance.
Sentencing was scheduled for Feb. 15, 2018; at sentencing defense counsel orally moved to withdraw the pleas and asked for a short continuance to file motions, citing (a) Lynch was on psychotropic medications when he pleaded guilty, (b) the plea canvass failed to disclose possible permanent license revocation, and (c) ineffective assistance of counsel.
The court denied the continuance, afforded Lynch and counsel an opportunity on the record to explain their claims, and then denied the motion to withdraw the pleas and sentenced Lynch per the Garvin agreement.
The court also discovered at sentencing that Lynch’s pretrial alcohol education program had not been formally terminated and, concluding the plea made termination appropriate, formally terminated the program without a separate evidentiary hearing.
Lynch appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred in declining an evidentiary hearing on the plea‑withdrawal motion, (2) the court erred in denying the motion (including on ineffective assistance grounds), and (3) the court erred by terminating program participation without a hearing.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Lynch's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw pleas	No hearing required because Lynch never requested one and the court afforded an opportunity to be heard; allegations lacked factual detail to justify an evidentiary hearing	Court should have held an evidentiary hearing on his allegations (medication, deficient canvass, counsel ineffectiveness)	Affirmed — no abuse; court conducted an on‑the‑record inquiry and Lynch gave no adequate factual basis for a further evidentiary hearing (citing State v. Simpson)
Whether the court should have granted plea withdrawal based on ineffective assistance of counsel under Practice Book § 39‑27(4)	Claim was conclusory and unsupported on the record; ineffective assistance generally addressed in habeas unless the record is adequate	Counsel failed to investigate multiple matters (program, arrests, blood test, mailing of notice, medication), so pleas were involuntary	Affirmed — Lynch failed to meet the two‑part test (performance and Hill v. Lockhart prejudice); record inadequate to show but‑for effect on plea decision
Whether the court erred by terminating Lynch’s alcohol education program without an evidentiary hearing	Termination was proper because the Garvin plea conceded Lynch was not entitled to dismissal and the court made an independent determination on the record	Termination without a hearing violated § 54‑56g and due process (Hancich)	Affirmed — court independently evaluated the plea context and properly terminated the program without a separate evidentiary hearing

Key Cases Cited

State v. Simpson, 329 Conn. 820, 189 A.3d 1215 (Conn. 2018) (trial court may address plea‑withdrawal motion on the record; an evidentiary hearing is not required when defendant presents no factual basis)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice for guilty‑plea ineffective assistance requires reasonable probability defendant would have gone to trial)
State v. Descoteaux, 200 Conn. 102, 509 A.2d 1035 (Conn. 1986) (trial court must make independent determination of satisfactory completion of alcohol education program)
State v. Hancich, 200 Conn. 615, 513 A.2d 638 (Conn. 1986) (defendant entitled to a hearing and reasons on record before removal from diversion program)
State v. Reid, 277 Conn. 764, 894 A.2d 963 (Conn. 2006) (failure to advise of collateral consequences does not render plea involuntary per se)
State v. Stith, 108 Conn. App. 126, 946 A.2d 1274 (Conn. App. 2008) (denial of plea‑withdrawal where defendant had affirmed not being under influence at canvass and provided insufficient proof of medication effects)
State v. Anthony D., 320 Conn. 842, 134 A.3d 219 (Conn. 2016) (defendant must allege facts to justify withdrawal under Practice Book § 39‑27)
State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 699 A.2d 921 (Conn. 1997) (explaining conditional plea agreements with different outcomes based on compliance)