126 Conn. App. 291
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant Reynolds pleaded guilty to being a persistent serious felony offender under § 53a-40 (c) after a jury trial on conspiracy to commit identity theft in the third degree and conspiracy to commit larceny in the third degree.
- Underlying crimes involved using a stolen identity (Jay Turoff) to obtain a loan at American General Finance in Manchester; a fake ID was used in Hartford for surveillance.
- Defendant elected to proceed pro se on part B information and later pleaded guilty to the persistent offender charge with standby counsel.
- The court conducted a plea canvass and, after verdict on the underlying counts, sentenced Reynolds to an enhanced term under § 53a-40 (j), which at the time required a public interest finding.
- Following the plea, Reynolds moved to withdraw his plea alleging lack of knowledge of the charge and the sentence; the court denied the motion.
- The appellate issue concerns whether the guilty plea waived Reynolds’ right to a jury determination on the public interest factor and whether the court failed to make the required public interest finding, requiring remand for proper fact-finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the guilty plea waived the jury determination on the public interest finding | Reynolds argues no explicit waiver on the public interest issue. | State contends waiver was valid under Michael A. and Bell. | Waiver valid; but remand necessary for public interest finding. |
| Whether the waiver complied with Gore/Michael A. standards | Golding review shows potential constitutional violation. | Waiver satisfied Gore/Michael A. standards. | Waiver valid under Gore and Michael A.; no Golding violation found. |
| Whether the trial court failed to make the required 'character and history' public interest finding | Court did not make the requisite finding and Reynolds did not acknowledge extended incarceration as public interest. | Not explicitly raised; focus on waiver. | Remand to make or acknowledge the public interest finding. |
| Whether the motion to withdraw plea was properly denied | Motion to withdraw should be granted if plea was involuntary or misinformed. | Trial court acted within discretion. | No abuse of discretion; however remand on public interest finding remains. |
| Post-plea remedy and final disposition | Sentence should be adjusted due to lack of proper public interest finding. | No further action required if waiver stands. | Part B sentence vacated and remanded for proper public interest finding or acknowledgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bell, 283 Conn. 748 (Conn. 2007) (public interest finding required two predicates for enhanced sentence under 53a-40 (h))
- State v. Gore, 288 Conn. 770 (Conn. 2008) (waiver of jury trial requires knowing, intelligent, voluntary canvass; silent record insufficient)
- State v. Michael A., 297 Conn. 808 (Conn. 2010) (plea can encompass waiver of public interest jury determination when not explicitly stated; aligns with Velasco/Bell)
- State v. Velasco, 253 Conn. 210 (Conn. 2000) (two predicates framework for enhanced sentence under Velasco/Bell)
- State v. Crump, 201 Conn. 489 (Conn. 1986) (review of waiver based on totality of circumstances)
- State v. Shockley, 188 Conn. 697 (Conn. 1982) (considerations for waiver of jury trial)